Amazon, the new WalMart?

[ivwshane]

So I came across this article which I found disappointing to say the least.

https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars

I reluctantly shop at Amazon because I can't buy alot of the things locally and the alternatives would be eBay which has essentially become one big market for Asia.

What do we do? Bezos is the richest person on earth, are you telling me he can't afford to pay his employees better? And look at the cities bending over backwards to get their business, for what? Increased taxes for everyone else to cover their shitty pay?

 

[shortylickens]

this issue is several years old, but yeah, I feel guilty for using them. Walmart sells shit products so its easy to avoid them. But if you want something fast and cheap theres a pretty good chance somebody is gonna have to slave away for you to have it.

 

[sportage]

I was just thinking about the same a while back.
That if Amazon built brick and mortar stores next to every Walmart, Walmart would cease to exist.
And only Amazon could become the demise of Walmart. Only Amazon could be that powerful.
But the reality is as was the case with Walmart, good intentions can go tragically wrong.
When Walmart first started and good old Sam was alive, Sam preached that MADE IN AMERICA theme. And people loved it.
Then Sam died, followed by greed and money replacing good intentions.
Walmart turned into what it is today.
If the Amazon of today would invest in directly challenging Walmart with brick and mortar, Amazon would succeed.
But the day would eventually come when Amazon too turned into a cheap imitation of it's original self.
Just as was the case with Walmart.

 

[Moonbeam]

We may be able to 3D print ourselves a new civilization.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah i never understood handing tax breaks over to corporations that already have billions. Legal bribery basically.

 

[K1052]

Yeah i never understood handing tax breaks over to corporations that already have billions. Legal bribery basically.

Depends how the deals are structured and what the government (local/state) gets out of it. Chasing a bunch of at or near minimum wage jobs with millions in tax breaks seems like not a good idea tho.

 

[pmv]

Isn't the practice of different states or areas of the country competing with each other to poach businesses from each other rather self-defeating? In the end, do any of them end up any better off, after they've all played beggar-my-neighbour to undercut each other? I would have thought part of the point of having a unified nation is to prevent that sort of race-to-the-bottom.

 

[K1052]

Isn't the practice of different states or areas of the country competing with each other to poach businesses from each other rather self-defeating? In the end, do any of them end up any better off, after they've all played beggar-my-neighbour to undercut each other? I would have thought part of the point of having a unified nation is to prevent that sort of race-to-the-bottom.

Yep, generally.

 

[Bitek]

Isn't the practice of different states or areas of the country competing with each other to poach businesses from each other rather self-defeating? In the end, do any of them end up any better off, after they've all played beggar-my-neighbour to undercut each other? I would have thought part of the point of having a unified nation is to prevent that sort of race-to-the-bottom.

That's basically Texas's economic strategy.

No regulations, minimal taxes (regressive when needed), govt protection of industry, and minimal worker benefits and protections.

That's also how you get poor schools, poor public health, chemical plants blowing up and highest in the nation flood insurance claims.

However, it allows Gov Perry to claim some Texan economic miracle when all they've done is shift jobs from one state to another in a race to the bottom.

 

[ivwshane]

Isn't the practice of different states or areas of the country competing with each other to poach businesses from each other rather self-defeating? In the end, do any of them end up any better off, after they've all played beggar-my-neighbour to undercut each other? I would have thought part of the point of having a unified nation is to prevent that sort of race-to-the-bottom.

I'm pretty sure it boils down to politicians wanting a win under their belt. The papers will read, "Amazon to open a new distribution center in our town, creating 1000's of jobs". Very rarely will you hear the true story, "Amazon to bring 1000's of low paying part time jobs to our town at the expense of the tax payer who now has to subsidize those very same workers".

Its how bridges to no where get built, shitty politicians who care more about their image rather than the town or country they represent.

 

[KB]

To play Devils advocate:

Even if they didn't have the Amazon jobs, the employees would still likely be on food stamps and unemployed. I doubt anyone works at Amazon because they want to, its likely because they have no other choice. Amazon and food stamps or Unemployed and Food stamps. It comes out better for the Taxpayer if its a job and food stamps.

Amazons' margins on goods is already razor thin (~0.5%). Paying their employees even a little more, would mean losing money on every purchase. Amazon could raise prices, but then they lose sales and growth stops. Bezos has to make sure Amazon grows revenue at double-digit rates or his companys stock price plummets and he is no longer the richest man. This is the ugly side of the public stock market.

Of course Bezos could make a huge difference in the lives of his employees and I wish he would. He sells 1 billion in stock every year and instead of giving personal bonuses to his underpaid employees, which he wouldn't need board approval to do, he spends it on his pet rocket project Blue origin.

 

[K1052]

That's basically Texas's economic strategy.

No regulations, minimal taxes (regressive when needed), govt protection of industry, and minimal worker benefits and protections.

That's also how you get poor schools, poor public health, chemical plants blowing up and highest in the nation flood insurance claims.

However, it allows Gov Perry to claim some Texan economic miracle when all they've done is shift jobs from one state to another in a race to the bottom.

If the rust belt wants to look at where many of their jobs went they need not cast their gaze as far south as Mexico.

 

[Bitek]

Personally I love Amazon and hate shopping at B&Ms.

They provide a tremendous service while cutting out so much waste and non-value activities.

How much time did you used to spend trudging to different stores only to find they didn't have stuff in stock, or it wasn't what you wanted, or was of questionable quality or price?


Meanwhile Amazon:
Unmatched variety of products, typically clear product reviews and feedback, quick shipping, they are always open and have items in stock.

Sure, I'd like to see the pay better (raise min wages,) and we should avoid subsidizing them, but the overall model is superior.

 

[Bitek]

If the rust belt wants to look at where many of their jobs went they need not cast their gaze as far south as Mexico.

Oh but it makes them feel so much better.

Also not to mention Texas has natural advantages of being on the coast and having sea ports, just as is the NE.

The "heartland" is at a disadvantage for global shipment of goods as they are so far inland and our infrastructure is slow and shitty to move goods. Time in transit costs you money so it is a loser to have facilities so far away from markets.

If they were smart they would demand better infrastructure to help them compete.
Instead they vote to give billionaires tax cuts and will get Jack Shit for it.

 

[K1052]

Oh but it makes them feel so much better.

Also not to mention Texas has natural advantages of being on the coast and having sea ports, just as is the NE.

The "heartland" is at a disadvantage for global shipment of goods as they are so far inland and our infrastructure is slow and shitty to move good. Time in transit costs you money so it is a loser to have facilities so far away from markets.

If they were smart they would demand better infrastructure to help them compete.
Instead they vote to give billionaires tax cuts and will get Jack Shit for it.

Yes, lots of heavy manufacturing is very unlikely to return to those places due to geography, costs, and increasingly depopulation/urbanization.

 

[Jaskalas]

What do we do? Bezos is the richest person on earth, are you telling me he can't afford to pay his employees better?

Paying people for labor is not in our future.
Amazon is only a symptom, the disease is our market where you have to pay people dirt, or eat dirt yourself. And frankly, with automation approaching it's best this way. All we have to do in response is restructure our government to provide basic income.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So I came across this article which I found disappointing to say the least.

https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars

I reluctantly shop at Amazon because I can't buy alot of the things locally and the alternatives would be eBay which has essentially become one big market for Asia.

What do we do? Bezos is the richest person on earth, are you telling me he can't afford to pay his employees better? And look at the cities bending over backwards to get their business, for what? Increased taxes for everyone else to cover their shitty pay?

This thread gives me hope. Amazon is perhaps the worst offender of the tech oligarchs. Exploited the existing infrastructure of big box stores to serve as its showrooms while offering "lower prices" largely by initially avoiding internet sales tax. Exploiting the USPS as its low cost distribution network. Their initial fulfillment centers were deep in Trump country, where they could pay crap wages for back breaking labor, which they are now trying to eliminate with robots. Now, we have cities literally selling their souls just to attract the new HQ2.

Amazon also completely destroyed the vibe of Seattle. The birth place of grunge is now a gentrified landscape of the haves and the have nothing.

This is not to say I don't respect the brilliance of Bezos, but he is also not dissimilar to the tycoons of the industrial age.

If you are a progressive person and care about social democracy, entitlements and the rich and corporations paying their fair share, you should be boycotting or protesting outside of every Amazon brick and mortar or Whole Foods.

 

[vi edit]

Isn't the practice of different states or areas of the country competing with each other to poach businesses from each other rather self-defeating? In the end, do any of them end up any better off, after they've all played beggar-my-neighbour to undercut each other? I would have thought part of the point of having a unified nation is to prevent that sort of race-to-the-bottom.

On a microlevel, check out Kansas City with MO and KS fighting between each other.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/kansas-and-missouri-fight-for-corporate-investment-and-jobs.html

One study from the Hall Family Foundation found that in a five-year period, the two states gave up more than $200 million in tax revenues for a net gain of just 414 jobs for Kansas — at least until the next company shuffled some jobs back across the Missouri River. The study estimated that Kansas (No. 24 in the 2015 Top States ranking) had paid $340,000 per job.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Personally I love Amazon and hate shopping at B&Ms.

They provide a tremendous service while cutting out so much waste and non-value activities.

How much time did you used to spend trudging to different stores only to find they didn't have stuff in stock, or it wasn't what you wanted, or was of questionable quality or price?

Meanwhile Amazon:
Unmatched variety of products, typically clear product reviews and feedback, quick shipping, they are always open and have items in stock.

Sure, I'd like to see the pay better (raise min wages,) and we should avoid subsidizing them, but the overall model is superior.

Their model dies the moment they start paying fair market values for labor and shipping. Also, the reason they now have to invest in brick and mortar presence is that they've managed to suffocate most of their free showrooms out of business.

I hope they don't buy out Target.

 

[Stokely]

Actually I was just talking about this subject yesterday. Amazon has the potential to be "Buy N Large" from Wall-e, which ironically was probably pointed at Wal-mart. Amazon took over books and obviously spread to almost anything else you could buy, including food. They lead the "cloud server" space by a large margin as far as I can tell (our company uses them to host an ever-increasing number of apps and databases) so it's not just retail. (I could be mistaken about them leading, I don't keep up on market share stuff)

Not that any of this is "bad" per se, but there should always be concern about too much power with any one company.

 

[PeterScott]

So I came across this article which I found disappointing to say the least.

https://newrepublic.com/article/146540/amazon-thriving-thanks-taxpayer-dollars

I reluctantly shop at Amazon because I can't buy alot of the things locally and the alternatives would be eBay which has essentially become one big market for Asia.

What do we do? Bezos is the richest person on earth, are you telling me he can't afford to pay his employees better? And look at the cities bending over backwards to get their business, for what? Increased taxes for everyone else to cover their shitty pay?

I have been calling it the internet Walmart for more than a decade. My thinking was based on how they both treat suppliers (squeeze them till they bleed).

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Yeah i never understood handing tax breaks over to corporations that already have billions. Legal bribery basically.

Because it's better in the long run if your people have jobs.

If Big Corporation X approaches City Y and says "We'll build a warehouse/office/hub/plant here if you give us giant tax breaks..." City Y has two choices. Try to do the math, it's not complicated.

1) Tell Big Corporation X to pound sand in which case Big Corporation X goes to a different city and City Y makes NOTHING.
or
2) Agree to Big Corporation X terms in which case City Y makes a little and City Y has people with jobs paying taxes on their salary instead of people on welfare getting tax dollars spent on them.

Which way works out best for City Y?

 

[mdram]

simple solution.

if you have a job, and its not enough income to live on, get a new job.
not all jobs are meant to support a family.

 

[vi edit]

Because it's better in the long run if your people have jobs.

If Big Corporation X approaches City Y and says "We'll build a warehouse/office/hub/plant here if you give us giant tax breaks..." City Y has two choices. Try to do the math, it's not complicated.

1) Tell Big Corporation X to pound sand in which case Big Corporation X goes to a different city and City Y makes NOTHING.
or
2) Agree to Big Corporation X terms in which case City Y makes a little and City Y has people with jobs paying taxes on their salary instead of people on welfare getting tax dollars spent on them.

Which way works out best for City Y?

And what happens when state Z offers more incentives than X and the company bails?

 

[PottedMeat]

He sells 1 billion in stock every year and instead of giving personal bonuses to his underpaid employees, which he wouldn't need board approval to do, he spends it on his pet rocket project Blue origin.

blue origin is a pretty good bet though, if he gets that us made methane engine at 100% he's looking at decades of defense contracts.