AOC- Amazon Pays their Employees in Starvation Wages.

[ivwshane]

IIRC Costco routinely scores above average on employee satisfaction and has much higher retention than its competitors

Are you a billionaire? Because if you aren't then your facts don't matter to glenn1.

 

[glenn1]

Your second paragraph reaffirms your idiocy as you ignored the fact that a raise in incomes are offset by an increase in sales because your 350k employees are now likely to spend more money at your company, you'll have an increase in worker satisfaction and less turnover which reduces your on-boarding costs and increase productivity.

IIRC Costco routinely scores above average on employee satisfaction and has much higher retention than its competitors

There's a business opportunity for you to poach the employees of all these companies paying "starvation wages" and pay them better and take over the industry when your sales increase because the employees spend more money at your company. Once you've become a billionaire you should franchise your idea so that others can profit from it also. Make sure you hire mostly women too so you can pay them more than 73 cents for every dollar a man makes, that's even more money your employees could plow back into sales for your company.

 

[Maxima1]

If you are comparing the country of Greece, aka a government, to businesses in the US then you are a bigger idiot then I originally thought.

Your second paragraph reaffirms your idiocy as you ignored the fact that a raise in incomes are offset by an increase in sales because your 350k employees are now likely to spend more money at your company, you'll have an increase in worker satisfaction and less turnover which reduces your on-boarding costs and increase productivity.

But hey you are such a smart guy who backs a political party with a good economic track record so we should all listen to you and not that of real world examples where companies like Costco pay way above the industry average and are doing great.

Costco doesn't have to worry as much about labor costs because their model enables it via greater efficiency (e.g. goods on pallets, fewer SKUs). And as you should be able to tell, this leads to the logical conclusion of fewer and fewer workers.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the thing people are missing here in general is that concentrated wealth and power allows employers to collectively pay employees much less than the value of the products they create.

There's a reason why despite the fact that the average American worker is vastly more productive than they were in the 1970's that pay has barely increased. If we were actually paying people by the economic value they produce this wouldn't be the case.

This is an older chart, but you get the idea:

The same people who think we can't afford to pay higher wages are the same people who think we can't raise taxes because we are at the top of the laugher curve. They think we are at the peak where pay and profits are at their equilibrium like with taxes and revenue, where in reality we aren't even close.

 

[glenn1]

The same people who think we can't afford to pay higher wages are the same people who think we can't raise taxes because we are at the top of the laugher curve. They think we are at the peak where pay and profits are at their equilibrium like with taxes and revenue, where in reality we aren't even close.

If you're correct then why aren't you taking the amazing business opportunity to hire all Amazon's workers at higher rates to compete against Amazon and put them out of business? Surely even if you lack the personal resources to start a company you can convince some angel investors to pony up the cash for such an industry disrupting idea.

 

[ivwshane]

Costco doesn't have to worry as much about labor costs because their model enables it via greater efficiency (e.g. goods on pallets, fewer SKUs). And as you should be able to tell, this leads to the logical conclusion of fewer and fewer workers.

Except that Costco has been growing and adding more employees so no, it doesn't lead to"fewer and fewer" workers. Costco doesn't use robots nor could they so while you are correct that Costco's business model allows for less employees per location compared to, say, WalMart, your conclusion is false.

 

[Maxima1]

Because gas station attendants are in the same boat as Amazon warehouse workers where their value-add to employers (and ultimately customers) is already perilously close to exceeding the salary/benefit cost of their labor. Thus their job will either need to evolve to provide additional value-add, or it will either go away or be automated. And if like AOC you attempt to raise their wages it will just accelerate that trend unless you can provide them additional value-add responsibilities at the same time (e.g. doing another job besides just stuffing boxes). It's the same reason you rarely see people doing jobs like elevator attendant anymore, people decided it wasn't worth any amount of money to do a job that solely consisted of pushing a button for someone.

We already essentially inflate a lot of jobs. For example, librarians at schools make as much as teachers do, yet I know many high school students could EASILY do that job. Oh, and just to make it look meritorious, you need a masters in library science....

 

[ivwshane]

If you're correct then why aren't you taking the amazing business opportunity to hire all Amazon's workers at higher rates to compete against Amazon and put them out of business? Surely even if you lack the personal resources to start a company you can convince some angel investors to pony up the cash for such an industry disrupting idea.

Lol is that you argument against what I said?

What a fucking idiot you are!

 

[fskimospy]

If you're correct then why aren't you taking the amazing business opportunity to hire all Amazon's workers at higher rates to compete against Amazon and put them out of business? Surely even if you lack the personal resources to start a company you can convince some angel investors to pony up the cash for such an industry disrupting idea.

Yes, I'm sure angel investors would be very excited to throw huge sums of money into building transportation and distribution infrastructure to go against a $1 trillion company based on the idea that you could destroy them by taking all their best employees before they say, took one of a thousand different steps to bankrupt you before returning to their previous practices. I love your business plan that relies on Amazon being run by morons and not enacting short term changes to destroy any competitor that tried to start up a new distribution company like that.

Similarly, someone should have just started up Google 2 and Apple 2 and stolen all the employees from those Silicon Valley companies that were colluding to artificially keep down wages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation#Civil_class_action

Man, Glenn and those angel investors really missed an opportunity to enact market forces on wages and crush Apple and Google.

 

[Maxima1]

Except that Costco has been growing and adding more employees so no, it doesn't lead to"fewer and fewer" workers. Costco doesn't use robots nor could they so while you are correct that Costco's business model allows for less employees per location compared to, say, WalMart, your conclusion is false.

They're able to do it with less. They don't need as much stocking to be done, etc..

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/business/aldi-walmart-low-food-prices/index.html

How a cheap, brutally efficient grocery chain is upending America's supermarkets

 

[IronWing]

I think the thing people are missing here in general is that concentrated wealth and power allows employers to collectively pay employees much less than the value of the products they create.

There's a reason why despite the fact that the average American worker is vastly more productive than they were in the 1970's that pay has barely increased. If we were actually paying people by the economic value they produce this wouldn't be the case.

This is an older chart, but you get the idea:

Folks like to bring up stagflation when bitching about Jimmy Carter but the graph shows the more important trend.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think the thing people are missing here in general is that concentrated wealth and power allows employers to collectively pay employees much less than the value of the products they create.

There's a reason why despite the fact that the average American worker is vastly more productive than they were in the 1970's that pay has barely increased. If we were actually paying people by the economic value they produce this wouldn't be the case.

This is an older chart, but you get the idea:

Nothing to see here. Nothing can be done.

*Returns to sticking head in sand and having no original thoughts of my own* - Conservatard

 

[glenn1]

Yes, I'm sure angel investors would be very excited to throw huge sums of money into building transportation and distribution infrastructure to go against a $1 trillion company based on the idea that you could destroy them by taking all their best employees before they say, took one of a thousand different steps to bankrupt you before returning to their previous practices. I love your business plan that relies on Amazon being run by morons and not enacting short term changes to destroy any competitor that tried to start up a new distribution company like that.

Similarly, someone should have just started up Google 2 and Apple 2 and stolen all the employees from those Silicon Valley companies that were colluding to artificially keep down wages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation#Civil_class_action

Man, Glenn and those angel investors really missed an opportunity to enact market forces on wages and crush Apple and Google.

Pick a different industry then if you don't want to go against Amazon specifically. It's not like Amazon started off as a trillion dollar company, you could start from scratch just like he did in the photo below. There's literally an unlimited amount of business opportunities where you could start from zero and grow to a trillion dollar company using your amazing business plan of paying workers more than the competition. I look forward to your plan becoming the new dominant form of business in the world akin to how Henry Ford and the assembly line revolutionized business forever.

 

[ivwshane]

They're able to do it with less. They don't need as much stocking to be done, etc..

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/05/business/aldi-walmart-low-food-prices/index.html

How a cheap, brutally efficient grocery chain is upending America's supermarkets

I'm sure you have a point but you aren't communicating it very well. You are now comparing one business model with another while ignoring the point being made.

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure you have a point but you aren't communicating it very well. You are now comparing one business model with another while ignoring the point being made.

There's fewer Aldi employees per store and they are expected to have a greater range of skills/capabilities so they get paid more. If Amazon wants to go to the fewer/better/higher paid model of staffing then great. What AOC wants is a big staff of people with more limited skill sets AND to pay them more and it doesn't work that way. Business value of employees is a balanced ratio of headcount, skills/capabilities, and pay - you can't just adjust the pay number higher and expect the other inputs to remain unchanged.

And unlike other stores, where there’s a clear division of labor — runners retrieve carts, cashiers ring up customers and clerks stock shelves — Aldi employees are cross-trained to perform every function. Their duties are also streamlined. Aldi displays products in their original cardboard shipping boxes, rather than stacking them individually, to save employees time stocking shelves. Most stores don’t list their phone numbers publicly because Aldi doesn’t want its workers to spend time answering calls.

The result: A single Aldi might have only three to five employees in the store at any given time, and only 15 to 20 on the entire payroll. The company claims to pay its workers above the industry average, but still saves on overall labor costs simply by having fewer people.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Well if we care about carbon emissions we should tax carbon, not inhibit free trade. The US does have the highest per capita emissions in the world, after all.

The cost of that carbon tax will inevitably hit consumers through higher costs for good and services, which inhibits free trade. Its not an economic model issue, its behavioral.

 

[ivwshane]

There's fewer Aldi employees per store and they are expected to have a greater range of skills/capabilities so they get paid more. If Amazon wants to go to the fewer/better/higher paid model of staffing then great. What AOC wants is a big staff of people with more limited skill sets AND to pay them more and it doesn't work that way. Business value of employees is a balanced ratio of headcount, skills/capabilities, and pay - you can't just adjust the pay number higher and expect the other inputs to remain unchanged.

No, she wants better pay for workers and both amazons and aldi's business model can support that.

You also make the false assumption that higher pay doesn't or can't lead to additional duties or a more efficient workforce.

 

[glenn1]

No, she wants better pay for workers and both amazons and aldi's business model can support that.

You also make the false assumption that higher pay doesn't or can't lead to additional duties or a more efficient workforce.

Why is it Jeff Bezos' responsibility to save consumers from their own choices? This is simply people trying to blame others for the situation you created yourselves - you knew damn well that Amazon pays low wages but you sold your soul to get your bag of cat food for a few pennies cheaper than the Mom and Pop store. If you want businesses to pay their workers more than create and/or patronize businesses that pay workers more. No one is forcing you to shop at Amazon. What's the old progressive saying, "If you don't like abortion Amazon then don't have one"? If you believe what you're saying then you should stop using Amazon permanently.

 

[Mai72]

No, she wants better pay for workers and both amazons and aldi's business model can support that.

You also make the false assumption that higher pay doesn't or can't lead to additional duties or a more efficient workforce.

Well if everyone was on board we'd all boycot Amazon until they paid their workers a more liveable wage. Don't see that happening.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that Walmart workers were also on food stamps?

 

[glenn1]

Well if everyone was on board we'd all boycot Amazon until they paid their workers a more liveable wage. Don't see that happening.

Wasn't it just a few years ago that Walmart workers were also on food stamps?

Maybe Washington State should pull the business licence for Amazon and make them relocate their HQ operations to another location until they pay their rank and file workers better than "starvation wages."

 

[fskimospy]

Pick a different industry then if you don't want to go against Amazon specifically. It's not like Amazon started off as a trillion dollar company, you could start from scratch just like he did in the photo below. There's literally an unlimited amount of business opportunities where you could start from zero and grow to a trillion dollar company using your amazing business plan of paying workers more than the competition. I look forward to your plan becoming the new dominant form of business in the world akin to how Henry Ford and the assembly line revolutionized business forever.

Glenn: 'mocks idea that wages should be higher'.

fskimospy: 'points out obvious reason why this isn't happening'.

Glenn: 'refuses to concede error, continues ranting'.

 

[fskimospy]

The cost of that carbon tax will inevitably hit consumers through higher costs for good and services, which inhibits free trade. Its not an economic model issue, its behavioral.

Huh? That's like saying sales tax or VAT inhibits free trade. Free trade is based around not discriminating on a product based on where it comes from.

 

[glenn1]

Glenn: 'mocks idea that wages should be higher'.

fskimospy: 'points out obvious reason why this isn't happening'.

Glenn: 'refuses to concede error, continues ranting'.

We're not disagreeing, we are both saying paying higher wages basely solely on some progressive principle of "it's a good thing" isn't a viable business model.

 

[mect]

Why is it Jeff Bezos' responsibility to save consumers from their own choices? This is simply people trying to blame others for the situation you created yourselves - you knew damn well that Amazon pays low wages but you sold your soul to get your bag of cat food for a few pennies cheaper than the Mom and Pop store. If you want businesses to pay their workers more than create and/or patronize businesses that pay workers more. No one is forcing you to shop at Amazon. What's the old progressive saying, "If you don't like abortion Amazon then don't have one"? If you believe what you're saying then you should stop using Amazon permanently.

Its not Bezos' responsibility. I don't blame Bezos for his wealth. I simply support legislation that would prevent people from accumulating that level of wealth at the expense of their employees. I don't blame the players, I blame the rules. Working conditions in this country don't improve because employers suddenly decide they're going to be saints. They improve because the citizens fight for policy that benefits the working class.

 

[Mai72]

Its not Bezos' responsibility. I don't blame Bezos for his wealth. I simply support legislation that would prevent people from accumulating that level of wealth at the expense of their employees. I don't blame the players, I blame the rules. Working conditions in this country don't improve because employers suddenly decide they're going to be saints. They improve because the citizens fight for policy that benefits the working class.

Are we heading towards a revolution, or workers revolting? I don't see that taking place, but in 10 years? 20 years?