My Amazon boycott is over

[Yojimbo]

I am shocked this morning. Amazon is raising it minimum wage for all full, part and seasonal employees to $15 effective next month. They also announced they would begin lobbying DC to raise the federal min. wage.

I’ve personally been boycotting Amazon for 5 years now. I guess Berne’s BEZOS bill scared them straight. Good for Amazon and now, I have some shopping to do, excuse me.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/10/02/amazon-raises-minimum-wage-to-15-for-all-us-employees.html

[Benton]

That's what it's going to take, companies having some initiative.

Personally, I'm against a federal minimum wage as it doesn't take into account wage disparity from area to area. Even in states that's a tricky thing as $14 an hour in Louisville won't pay for rent but $14 in far eastern or western Kentucky will get you a two bedroom apartment. I also don't like directly requiring companies to set wages and the like. That shouldn't really be the government's role.

But I'm good with the government encouraging paying higher wages through tax breaks and other incentives. That's one reason I hated the last round of GOP tax giveaways for businesses, it did nothing to incentivize them to pay employees more. And, yeah, several companies gave employees a one-time bonus... which amounted to next to nothing in long-term economic growth. I'd rather see tax rates increase on businesses, then lower them relative to management exempt employee salary expenditures. That encourages the company to 1- make more money and 2- spend more money on employees. Those higher paid employees then spend more money and pay more taxes, which offsets the lower rate.

[Yojimbo]

(10-02-2018, 11:50 AM)Benton Wrote: That's what it's going to take, companies having some initiative.

Personally, I'm against a federal minimum wage as it doesn't take into account wage disparity from area to area. Even in states that's a tricky thing as $14 an hour in Louisville won't pay for rent but $14 in far eastern or western Kentucky will get you a two bedroom apartment. I also don't like directly requiring companies to set wages and the like. That shouldn't really be the government's role.

But I'm good with the government encouraging paying higher wages through tax breaks and other incentives. That's one reason I hated the last round of GOP tax giveaways for businesses, it did nothing to incentivize them to pay employees more. And, yeah, several companies gave employees a one-time bonus... which amounted to next to nothing in long-term economic growth. I'd rather see tax rates increase on businesses, then lower them relative to management exempt employee salary expenditures. That encourages the company to 1- make more money and 2- spend more money on employees. Those higher paid employees then spend more money and pay more taxes, which offsets the lower rate.

I’d prefer a system like that, too. The BEZOS bill should still be implemented. That would ensure large companies are responsible for the cost of their low wage employees on the government/country.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2018, 11:56 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: I’d prefer a system like that, too. The BEZOS bill should still be implemented. That would ensure large companies are responsible for the cost of their low wage employees on the government/country.

See I don't get this one.  I'm going off what you say, so maybe the bill covers a lot, but  what if they didn't hire them at all?  You are  penalizing them for paying $10 an hour versus $0 an hour.  what if the government decides a family of four making under $100,000 gets benefits.  Do they have to cover those as well?  

[Benton]

(10-02-2018, 12:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: See I don't get this one.  I'm going off what you say, so maybe the bill covers a lot, but  what if they didn't hire them at all?  You are  penalizing them for paying $10 an hour versus $0 an hour.  what if the government decides a family of four making under $100,000 gets benefits.  Do they have to cover those as well?  

Because they still have to have some employee.

It's like self check at Walmart. Yeah, they can cut out X amount of jobs, but you will never be able to completely automate a retail environment. It would be fun to watch the looting for the company that tries... maybe they could have the robot stockers hang sings on the shelves that said "Sorry for the inconvenience, the parent company wanted to save money and the item you're looking for was recently stolen by someone without a job."

I'm not a fan of the BEZOS though. Carrots work better than sticks. But, ultimately, something needs to be done. It's ridiculous that taxpayers are forced to keep companies profit margins high. 

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2018, 12:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Because they still have to have some employee.

It's like self check at Walmart. Yeah, they can cut out X amount of jobs, but you will never be able to completely automate a retail environment. It would be fun to watch the looting for the company that tries... maybe they could have the robot stockers hang sings on the shelves that said "Sorry for the inconvenience, the parent company wanted to save money and the item you're looking for was recently stolen by someone without a job."

I'm not a fan of the BEZOS though. Carrots work better than sticks. But, ultimately, something needs to be done. It's ridiculous that taxpayers are forced to keep companies profit margins high. 

Side story, the local Wal Mart was apparently one of the test stores for the thing where shoppers can get a hand scanner and a bag holder for the cart and scan and bag their groceries as they shop.  I just noticed that it has been gone for a while and one of the managers there said that shoppers were stealing too much to make it worth the while.

At any rate, you can never automate everything, but I imagine there will be 50+ self checkouts and 3 or 4 people watching them, eventually.  If I don't like it I can shop somewhere else, I guess.  Someone behind me was complaining "to himself" about the person in front of me using an access card and I shrugged and said "Can't you shop somewhere that doesn't accept access cards?"  People never know what to say when you bring that sort of thing up.

Anyways, we keep privatizing profits and socializing loss, and that's the way it is. Sucks to not be on the winning side of that coin, but that's America for ya.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2018, 12:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Because they still have to have some employee.

It's like self check at Walmart. Yeah, they can cut out X amount of jobs, but you will never be able to completely automate a retail environment. It would be fun to watch the looting for the company that tries... maybe they could have the robot stockers hang sings on the shelves that said "Sorry for the inconvenience, the parent company wanted to save money and the item you're looking for was recently stolen by someone without a job."

I'm not a fan of the BEZOS though. Carrots work better than sticks. But, ultimately, something needs to be done. It's ridiculous that taxpayers are forced to keep companies profit margins high. 

i'm not talking about them laying everyone off, just that, and maybe I can't explain it right, most of us don't employ anyone for any amount.  I'm not arguing against the idea that  a lot of companies should pay more to the low level employees, just the part where we hold them accountable for what the government decides they are entitled to because of low wages.  

[Benton]

(10-02-2018, 12:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Side story, the local Wal Mart was apparently one of the test stores for the thing where shoppers can get a hand scanner and a bag holder for the cart and scan and bag their groceries as they shop.  I just noticed that it has been gone for a while and one of the managers there said that shoppers were stealing too much to make it worth the while.

At any rate, you can never automate everything, but I imagine there will be 50+ self checkouts and 3 or 4 people watching them, eventually.  If I don't like it I can shop somewhere else, I guess.  Someone behind me was complaining "to himself" about the person in front of me using an access card and I shrugged and said "Can't you shop somewhere that doesn't accept access cards?"  People never know what to say when you bring that sort of thing up.

Anyways, we keep privatizing profits and socializing loss, and that's the way it is.  Sucks to not be on the winning side of that coin, but that's America for ya.

My wife does that at Sam's, the scan and go. I think it works there because you have fewer people buying higher volumes, and 1 or 2 people checking as you go out. But I don't think that would work at regular Walmarts or smaller stores as you've got more people buying fewer things and going out at the same time.

(10-02-2018, 01:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: i'm not talking about them laying everyone off, just that, and maybe I can't explain it right, most of us don't employ anyone for any amount.  I'm not arguing against the idea that  a lot of companies should pay more to the low level employees, just the part where we hold them accountable for what the government decides they are entitled to because of low wages.  

Ultimately, someone has to keep some sort of check on the system, otherwise it goes off the rails. If you scrap all the laws and regulations, employers will pay employees as little as possible. That's not socialist propaganda, that's historically what's happened every where in every form of government. We've been heading that direction more and more for the last half century in the US. 

[Au165]

(10-02-2018, 12:20 PM)Benton Wrote: Because they still have to have some employee.

It's like self check at Walmart. Yeah, they can cut out X amount of jobs, but you will never be able to completely automate a retail environment. It would be fun to watch the looting for the company that tries... maybe they could have the robot stockers hang sings on the shelves that said "Sorry for the inconvenience, the parent company wanted to save money and the item you're looking for was recently stolen by someone without a job."

I'm not a fan of the BEZOS though. Carrots work better than sticks. But, ultimately, something needs to be done. It's ridiculous that taxpayers are forced to keep companies profit margins high. 

Well Amazon is kind of already doing this with their convenience stores. They use a system of cameras and sensors to basically bill people for anything they take. You don't completely automate store but you greatly reduce staffing. If I only need two people to run a store I'd normally need five for, I can pay the two 50% more and keep two workers worth of salary back. 

The question going forward will become "are more jobs at lower pay better than less jobs at higher pay?" It's being tested out in many industries and it's why a lot of people in tech think there will need to be a universal income to offset the amount of jobs that will continue to be lost to technology advancements going forward. I mean heck don't let this 15$/hr thing with Amazon fool you, they are currently working to automate a lot of their sorting and distribution centers. This to me signals they are getting close to having a working model that will allow them to reduce part of their work force. 

[Benton]

(10-02-2018, 01:46 PM)Au165 Wrote: Well Amazon is kind of already doing this with their convenience stores. They use a system of cameras and sensors to basically bill people for anything they take. You don't completely automate store but you greatly reduce staffing. If I only need two people to run a store I'd normally need five for, I can pay the two 50% more and keep two workers worth of salary back. 

Not disagreeing on reducing staff due to technology (rather, I agree it happens in nearly every industry), but I don't think the trend is to pay the two remaining employees 50% more. That's part of why the economy is floundering. Companies are reducing staff and, mostly, keeping wages flat while receiving more and more tax breaks (paid for by workers earning less).

Like Reagan said, the problem with (corporate) socialism is eventually companies run out of taxpayers money to prop them up. 

Quote:The question going forward will become "are more jobs at lower pay better than less jobs at higher pay?" It's being tested out in many industries and it's why a lot of people in tech think there will need to be a universal income to offset the amount of jobs that will continue to be lost to technology advancements going forward. I mean heck don't let this 15$/hr thing with Amazon fool you, they are currently working to automate a lot of their sorting and distribution centers. This to me signals they are getting close to having a working model that will allow them to reduce part of their work force. 

From my experience, it's still an efforts across most industries to have fewer jobs at lesser pay. I'm on a couple regional workforce boards/economic development groups, and the thing I continually hear is "we can't get skilled people to work for X wages and pass a drug screen." One local employer has around 300 jobs and has maintained about 60 openings since January. It's hurt production, and they end up paying tons of overtime, but the company won't budge off the starting wage (I think it's around $12-13 an hour).

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2018, 02:06 PM)Benton Wrote: Not disagreeing on reducing staff due to technology (rather, I agree it happens in nearly every industry), but I don't think the trend is to pay the two remaining employees 50% more. That's part of why the economy is floundering. Companies are reducing staff and, mostly, keeping wages flat while receiving more and more tax breaks (paid for by workers earning less).

Like Reagan said, the problem with (corporate) socialism is eventually companies run out of taxpayers money to prop them up. 


From my experience, it's still an efforts across most industries to have fewer jobs at lesser pay. I'm on a couple regional workforce boards/economic development groups, and the thing I continually hear is "we can't get skilled people to work for X wages and pass a drug screen." One local employer has around 300 jobs and has maintained about 60 openings since January. It's hurt production, and they end up paying tons of overtime, but the company won't budge off the starting wage (I think it's around $12-13 an hour).

I know my wife at her last job had to fill in at HR for a while, and she had to hire people for their call center.  The bosses would say how come you hired this person?  They have a marijuana charge or whatever.  She'd say you are starting at $12.00 an hour.  You're not going to get a college graduate with a clean record.

[Benton]

(10-02-2018, 03:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I know my wife at her last job had to fill in at HR for a while, and she had to hire people for their call center.  The bosses would say how come you hired this person?  They have a marijuana charge or whatever.  She'd say you are starting at $12.00 an hour.  You're not going to get a college graduate with a clean record.

It still amazes me how disconnected some people (usually upper management in medium to large companies) can be. That was the case in my last company, and in a lot of the companies I deal with. I had an opening for three years because the company thought sports writers were only worth $9 an hour to cover high school games, or $25 per story, but no benefits. During quarterly meetings I would cite advertisers who had pulled because there was little to no sports coverage at that property and upper management would just shrug and say "well, find a customer to replace them." They lost tens of thousands of dollars in the course of two years, not even factoring in lost rack sales. But it didn't fit their spreadsheet perception to pay more than $9.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2018, 04:15 PM)Benton Wrote: It still amazes me how disconnected some people (usually upper management in medium to large companies) can be. That was the case in my last company, and in a lot of the companies I deal with. I had an opening for three years because the company thought sports writers were only worth $9 an hour to cover high school games, or $25 per story, but no benefits. During quarterly meetings I would cite advertisers who had pulled because there was little to no sports coverage at that property and upper management would just shrug and say "well, find a customer to replace them." They lost tens of thousands of dollars in the course of two years, not even factoring in lost rack sales. But it didn't fit their spreadsheet perception to pay more than $9.

Oh just replace the customer?  Didn't know it was as easy as that.  

[Griever]

Im glad they are doing this

all we are losing due to the $15/hr increase is our VCP (which is based building productivity, and attendance and was one a month) and our RSU's (couldnt do anything with them for 2 years anyways), which they were already seemingly thinking of phasing out and replacing with a direct stock purchase plan

all of our benefits are staying the same

[CKwi88]

So a one trillion dollar company needs to be strong-armed into paying their workers a respectable wage? Color me unimpressed.

Seems like this should be a bare minimum. Happy for their workers though.

[Benton]

(10-02-2018, 05:32 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: So a one trillion dollar company needs to be strong-armed into paying their workers a respectable wage? Color me unimpressed.

Seems like this should be a bare minimum. Happy for their workers though.

Slow down. They wouldn't be a trillion dollar company if they paid their workers more.

[Dill]

Just a side note on the issue of technology, wages, and worker replacement.

Well into my teenage years (I was born in '51), most every gas station had a service crew of attendats who pumped your gas and washed your windows, and often checked your oil and tires. That was "the standard." A self-service station would appear non-competitive.

Then these new-fangled self-service stations stared opening up in the late '60s. They were not Sinclair or Shell or Humble or other big name brands, though now I cannot remember their names. I saw them first in "big cities" like Billings and Rapid city (I am from Southeastern Montana, where our county seat is 4,000 people). HS kids seemed to prefer them because the gas was a few cents cheaper.

By the mid-70s, it was RARE to see a service station attendant anywhere, and by then I was driving as far as Texas and Connecticut. Apparently consumers preferred the savings, or over time forgot the convenience.

Credit cards no doubt made this easier, but the transition to self service occurred before credit cards could be read at the pump.

So these service jobs became superfluous, and not really because of advancing technology--just consumers willing to work a little more to save a buck. Now pumping one's own gas is just normal. And companies save on wages, apparently.

NB I seem to remember attendants at NJ gas stations, back in the 90s--required by law. Was that the case? Is it still?

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2018, 06:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a side note on the issue of technology, wages, and worker replacement.

Well into my teenage years (I was born in '51), most every gas station had a service crew of attendats who pumped your gas and washed your windows, and often checked your oil and tires.  That was "the standard."  A self-service station would appear non-competitive.

Then these new-fangled self-service stations stared opening up in the late '60s. They were not Sinclair or Shell or Humble or other big name brands, though now I cannot remember their names.  I saw them first in "big cities" like Billings and Rapid city (I am from Southeastern Montana, where our county seat is 4,000 people). HS kids seemed to prefer them because the gas was a few cents cheaper.

By the mid-70s, it was RARE to see a service station attendant anywhere, and by then I was driving as far as Texas and Connecticut.  Apparently consumers preferred the savings, or over time forgot the convenience.

Credit cards no doubt made this easier, but the transition to self service occurred before credit cards could be read at the pump.

So these service jobs became superfluous, and not really because of advancing technology--just consumers willing to work a little more to save a buck.  Now pumping one's own gas is just normal. And companies save on wages, apparently.

NB I seem to remember attendants at NJ gas stations, back in the 90s--required by law.  Was that the case? Is it still?

We were actually talking about this the other day.  No matter how vividly I recall full service stations being the norm, the idea of anyone pumping my gas other than me seems like a completely absurd concept now.  When I tell teens now that I had a job bagging groceries when I was their age I may as well be telling them that I used to have a job herding woolly mammoths, or calibrating Victrolas or something.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2018, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Slow down. They wouldn't be a trillion dollar company if they paid their workers more.

Does Amazon make a profit yet? I seem to remember they don’t really net much, but that could have changed by now. Be really weird having the richest guy in the world running a company that tries to break even, but that’s the stock market for you.

[Dill]

(10-02-2018, 06:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: We were actually talking about this the other day.  No matter how vividly I recall full service stations being the norm, the idea of anyone pumping my gas other than me seems like a completely absurd concept now.  When I tell teens now that I had a job bagging groceries when I was their age I may as well be telling them that I used to have a job herding woolly mammoths, or calibrating Victrolas or something.

I still remember the full uniform--cap included. Those two guys are out of a job today.