Ethically, Amazon is worse than Walmart

[Craig234]

It's a little off-topic but I love newegg.com. I was too impatient and thought the credit card screen locked up when I purchased a router. So, I placed two orders. By the time I went to cancel,they had already invoiced and shipped. Customer service just told me to not accept the one box and it will automatically return to sender and they remove the charge. No hassle, easy to talk to and understandable of me being an impatient idiot.

@Craig: You should have been able to place an order for the item when it was $20 and been able to refuse the package of the first one ($25). I guess Amazon works different.

Back on topic, don't know how ethical it is to pay taxes that you aren't required to collect. Like the other thread about Amazon and taxes, I am all for a law that fixes that situation but right now, they don't have to pay them.

Jocko, I like Newegg too. I opened the package in the morning, and noticed the price drop in the afternoon - they just leave packages, so I couldn't refuse it easily anyway.

I don't blame Amazon for not collecting the tax they don't have to - that's a problem for the governments to solve.

But they don't just not collect it and do as they're told, they were fighting tooth and nail to prevent the government correcting it, screw the needs of society. I blame them for that.

That's the problem with corporations influencing our politics - corporations are supposed to be 'selfish' yet we protect their rights to defeat the citizens' interests in democracy.

 

[shurato]

I love Amazon. Their CS is top notch. I've returned and received a refund on an electronics item that was 7 months old that the manufacturer would not honor the warranty. I've returned PC games that were shit and didn't work on my PC due to a host of issues /cough LA Noire. I had Prime for free for a year then got it for half price after that. It goes on and on...

However the stunt they pulled recently offering the discounts if you scanned an item at your local B&M shop was pretty dirty.

Walmart sells mainly shit trinkets from China. It's a zoo trying to even shop there.
Either way we need more competition and support for local businesses.

 

[hal2kilo]

I love Amazon. Their CS is top notch. I've returned and received a refund on an electronics item that was 7 months old that the manufacturer would not honor the warranty. I've returned PC games that were shit and didn't work on my PC due to a host of issues /cough LA Noire. I had Prime for free for a year then got it for half price after that. It goes on and on...

However the stunt they pulled recently offering the discounts if you scanned an item at your local B&M shop was pretty dirty.

Walmart sells mainly shit trinkets from China. It's a zoo trying to even shop there.
Either way we need more competition and support for local businesses.

They have the online experience down pat, just like Ebay. Newegg is up there, but there's really no comparison. My family began to experience Christmas gift giving from me once I fiqured out how easy it was to do my shopping. There's really no end to what you can buy on Amazon with the partners they deal with. No worry's about dealing with those partners, cause Amazon will make it good.

 

[rchiu]

"Ethically" - Well everyone has different set of ethical standard and focus (business practice, environmental friendliness, gender equity, contribution to local economy/employment..etc), so what exactly are we talking about?

That's why anytime anyone throws around the word "ethically", it's nothing but bunch of personal opinion, biases and hot air.

 

[nageov3t]

For all of the complaints about Walmart, at least it--

1. employs lots of workers. Amazon employs fewer people

different sized companies have different number of employees?

2. pays sales taxes to local governments

Amazon does not do this.

amazon customers are supposed to pay sales tax on their orders. is it amazon's fault that their customers don't?

Also, it might be arguable that working conditions in amazon warehouses are worse than working conditions in walmarts.

nothing in that article says anything about conditions in Walmart warehouses to compare them with Amazon's.

warehouse work across the board is grueling, unskilled labor work. want a better job? better yourself.

Also Walmart has taken the lead in more progressive causes, like more organic foods, as well as cheap generic prescription drugs.

Amazon is not a grocery store, nor do they (to the best of my knowledge) have a pharmacy.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Jocko, I like Newegg too. I opened the package in the morning, and noticed the price drop in the afternoon - they just leave packages, so I couldn't refuse it easily anyway.

I don't blame Amazon for not collecting the tax they don't have to - that's a problem for the governments to solve.

But they don't just not collect it and do as they're told, they were fighting tooth and nail to prevent the government correcting it, screw the needs of society. I blame them for that.

Amazon wants the issue to be dealt with at a federal level so that there are clear guidelines on how to proceed on the manner which is why they are fighting states over the issue. They are not however fighting against the actual idea tax collection per se if it is dealt with and decided on federal level so that it applies to all internet sales for everyone.

That's the problem with corporations influencing our politics - corporations are supposed to be 'selfish' yet we protect their rights to defeat the citizens' interests in democracy.

Corporations are no more or less selfish then any other entity be they incorporated or not. In fact corporations are nothing more then a legal construct created by government that allows individuals, businesses, and private organizations to be eligible for certain privileges such as the ability to shift legal liabilities to a separate incorporated entity. So imparting some sense of emotion or characteristic such a "selfishness" is just you projecting your own feelings on the subject rather then being objective.

 

[Aikouka]

For all of the complaints about Walmart, at least it--

1. employs lots of workers. Amazon employs fewer people
2. pays sales taxes to local governments

Amazon does not do this. Also, it might be arguable that working conditions in amazon warehouses are worse than working conditions in walmarts.

I'm sorry, but honestly... your post is completely superfluous. Nothing that you've mentioned here really even deals with Amazon's ethics.

#1 is purely based on the nature of their business in that they are an online distribution service. At best, this point may show that Wal-Mart does more good for the nation in regard to providing more employment opportunities.

#2 is based on the current tax codes. This may be the only somewhat viable thing, as Amazon seemingly does try to work around the current tax laws to avoid having to collect sales tax from its customers.

The problem is that even if Amazon doesn't collect sales tax, the customer is supposed to report it on their state income tax anyway. Is it Amazon's fault that people are greedy? Just take a peek over at sites like SlickDeals and see how people consider online retailers as a "no tax haven" and think of Use Tax as a dirty word. :|

 

[Craig234]

"Ethically" - Well everyone has different set of ethical standard and focus (business practice, environmental friendliness, gender equity, contribution to local economy/employment..etc), so what exactly are we talking about?

That's why anytime anyone throws around the word "ethically", it's nothing but bunch of personal opinion, biases and hot air.

You call it raping your wife, I call it nature in action. You're full of hot air.

 

[Craig234]

I'm sorry, but honestly... your post is completely superfluous. Nothing that you've mentioned here really even deals with Amazon's ethics.

#1 is purely based on the nature of their business in that they are an online distribution service. At best, this point may show that Wal-Mart does more good for the nation in regard to providing more employment opportunities.

This is the issue about how society has an interest in people being employed that can conflict with efficiency.

Is it always better to have an item sent to a local store and sold?

The bad news is, that wastes the resources of a building, the real estate it's on, the people who stock the shelf and sell the item and other things at the store, the gas and pollution and time driving to the store, the parking space and traffic congestion, the energy for the store...

The 'good' news is, it puts money in the local real estate market, employs people, and otherwise generates economic activity locally.

Consider three models to make the point:

Model 1 (Amazon): Internet seller - warehouses, delivery services, online, 1k employees
Model 2 (Retail): Sales same goods, local stores, 10k employees
Model 3: Sales same goods, Internet model, 1K for sales, 9K paid to dig and fill holes

The point here is that the third model might get the same thing done as theother models, and 'maintain employment' by pointless paying 9k people to do useless things 'just to keep employment' - it's waste. Sometimes that happens, when efficiency means those people aren't needed for the business. Thing is, that's 9k people who lose employment - and society has an issue with that.

In earlier times, 'there was always new business'. Still the case, in the global workforce?

Have we as a society come up with a political way of addressing this? One option being a safety net? Not really, we haven't. The policies are incomplete and under attack.

Retail having more hiring has some societal benefit - but isn't it sometimes no different than model 3 above, kind of useless?

When there are unnecessary less efficient things like excessive retail, is that all that different from having a better safety net and the more efficient business?

We count on the private market to use the resources for useful things. It doesn't always.

I think a useful idea is to imagine that 2% of the people can meet all their needs for food, transportation, entertainment, whatever - and the other 98% are not needed.

What do you do with them? What if the concentration of wealth is such that the 2% own everything - how do the 98% have land, food?

I think the idea here is to remind people to think of 'the good of society' and not only 'what's most efficient' because 'what's most efficient' might not meet a lot of needs.

Efficiency is good, but more is needed. There are issues you get into trying to compare the 'issues' with Amazon needing fewer employees, the good and bad for society.

That's not really much of an ethical issue for Amazon. It's more one for society.

What we need to do though it to not let the mega corporations take control of the government and set policies only for their needs, and leave the people without power.

 

[Craig234]

Corporations are no more or less selfish then any other entity be they incorporated or not. In fact corporations are nothing more then a legal construct created by government that allows individuals, businesses, and private organizations to be eligible for certain privileges such as the ability to shift legal liabilities to a separate incorporated entity. So imparting some sense of emotion or characteristic such a "selfishness" is just you projecting your own feelings on the subject rather then being objective.

You're wrong, you have an ideology that needs correction.

Corporations have a legal requirement not to consider the larger societal interests and only pursue their own profit, while citizens - at least not right-wingers - can be human beings.

It would take a bit to lay this out for you - no doubt I could use quotes and speeches by leaders who have made the point - but I question the likelihood of it doing any good.

This is a deficiency in right-wing ideology a lot - they just ignore 'society' in order to use simplistic approaches leaving problems they have no solution for and wash their hands of.

They just use 'magical phrases' to blow the issues off - 'the invisible hand fixes it all!'

(Of course, they have no idea what the 'invisible hand' really was in context, how Adam Smith was more arguing the opposite of their laissez-faire ideology).

Corporations are a legal construct that IS different than other societal creations.

Maybe that's less true as government is taken over by those corporations - but they SHOULD be different. Thing is we have to teach you a new word, "society", to talk.

 

[airdata]

I bought most of my xmas gifts on amazon.

 

[CycloWizard]

Have we really fallen to the point where we consider it unethical for people to actually work to earn their keep? That seems to be the main complaint about Amazon. I did roofing for a summer and there sure as hell wasn't AC up there, but I did it because it was a job that paid me what I thought was a fair amount for the work I did. If the employees don't like their jobs, they are free to leave.

They still spend all day moving boxes around in a warehouse like the one below.

F'ing whiners. That's the job. Don't like it? Get the hell out and don't let the door hit you on your way. Heaven forbid anyone do any real work in this country. I did plenty of manual labor to earn money for college. The douches who didn't and got grants from the federal government rapidly drove up the price of college to the point where I'm still paying off my loans. FUBAR.

 

[Deeko]

You call it raping your wife, I call it nature in action. You're full of hot air.

You must be mind numbingly bad for every cause you've ever supported, with posts like this. You do get that, don't you? If you ever want the progressive ideology you so desparately support to, well, progress, you should stop posting about it permanently.

 

[Triumph]

12 bucks an hour for moving boxes around sounds about right for me. They probably make 18 with all the overtime I'm sure they do.

 

[shira]

For all of the complaints about Walmart, at least it--

1. employs lots of workers. Amazon employs fewer people
2. pays sales taxes to local governments

Amazon does not do this. Also, it might be arguable that working conditions in amazon warehouses are worse than working conditions in walmarts.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/tech...-working-conditions-are-only-temporary/46426/

Also Walmart has taken the lead in more progressive causes, like more organic foods, as well as cheap generic prescription drugs.

Almost every state has a method for residents to send in sales tax for items they purchased through the mail. Anyone who thinks Amazon should be collecting sales tax on all purchases is free to send in their own sales tax on their own purchases.

As to WHY Amazon doesn't collect sales tax: Does New Egg charge sales tax? Does Buy.com charge sales tax? Does L.L. Bean charge sales tax? So why should Amazon place themselves at a competitive disadvantage to other internet sellers that do not collect sales tax?

If the federal government passed a unified "Internet and mail-order sales tax" law, requiring all out-of-state sellers to collect and send in sales tax, I'm sure Amazon would be happy to comply. Until that happens, Amazon would be insane to charge sales tax when many of their competitors do not. And IF the U.S. government were to pass such a law, I'm sure the right-wing crowd on ATPN would complain about the huge burden placed on Momma-Poppa internet retailers.