Consumers are constantly pushing down the prices on everything, expecting more and more for less and less. Faced with this reality, companies have to streamline and become more effective in order to succeed and profit. This is what Amazon are doing.
We moan about having to pay for baggage, choosing seats, food and even using the bathroom on flights now - but this is solely because of our want to push down the headline price of flights. The price has been reduced...but the cost is still there.
AFAIK, Amazon aren't doing any illegal, they're just working very efficiently.
Or, they'll just accelerate the automation plans they're already pursuing, and simply fire people. What good is an higher wage, if you're unable to get a job?
I'm going to copy and paste from something I wrote in another thread.
From my experience with warehouses/fulfillment centers, all the other options are same or worse than Amazon with regards to worker treatment. Besides, on Amazon plenty of merchants do their own fulfillment, and those that do fulfill with Amazon are going to fulfill with Amazon on eBay or Rakuten or their own website anyway. To do so morally you'll have to look into the fulfillment details of any individual company you do business with.
Honestly, it just sucks to be an unskilled worker in today's society, its not something new to Amazon.
I hear this often if I try to discuss Amazon.com work conditions, but I don't like the excuse. Costco is the largest company that comes to mind which makes much stronger claims and (if you believe them) treats employees, even 'unskilled' employees, better.
Here are some Glassdoor reviews for Costco Wholesale:
I'm sure this isn't a good comparison. But Costco is doing fine and has a large market cap (52B).
This isn't new to Amazon.com, but Amazon.com is exemplary in treating employees in high-demand (i.e. easily replaceable) positions poorly. We should talk about their warehouses because their policies alone could nudge the industry to being more compassionate.
Bezos repeats that "long-term" "willing to be misunderstood" stuff a lot, but how many companies have tried really treating replaceable workers well? Maybe the current conditions inhibit workers from fulfilling their potential and making larger impacts than carrying boxes.
Amazon's warehouses aren't the future of work. They're its history.
That kind of zero-skilled, follow-the-instructions work is going fully robotic, much more quickly than people realize. Amazon themselves are investing heavily in robotics.
It gets worse. What if skilled workers are skill in a field that becomes suddenly redundant? Think about payroll clerks who typed out checks every two weeks; now it's all done by computers, databases and spreadsheets. Even skilled workers are not necessarily immune.
Of course that merely shows that there is a problem, it doesn't show what to blame or how to fix it in general.
The problem is that all of the technology we've created as a society (sharing science, funding from the government, allowing resource harvesting from public land) is being used to make workers obsolete, but instead of honoring the communal investment in technology by making a strong safety net where people can live, further training/education, and thrive, making our economy even stronger, we allow the corporations and uber-rich to dodge taxes (and hoard the hundreds of billions of dollars that could support that safety net).
If some "tech-of-last-week-skilled" workers can't become "tech-of-next-week-skilled" workers in that proverbial week, then they already are unskilled workers and should be treated as such.
They are "sadly" forced to find other unskilled labor based jobs, many of which are being replaced by automation or process improvements... Or they need to find a way to learn a skill that can provide a stable income for them. I'm not saying it is always easy to just pick up a skill like that, but that's the more job-security-based route to go...
I think some of this can be solved with apprenticeships like some manufacturers are doing in the US. Were they need skilled labor to preform mechanical tasks automation is not able to do yet.
Though the number of these jobs is not going to be enough.
I would love to be able to hold my breath for that, but I somehow doubt that the direct result of the race for profit and monopoly will be gifts with no strings attached.
There's a few ways to view it. However I think between all the perspectives there's one central theme. A basic income is not a gift. It's kind of part of the unwritten deal no one has ever discussed. As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us. Humans have a knack though for really making use of our intelligence, and physical capabilities. We've engineered (hacked) the physical world to make our lives better. Doing that alone though is impossible, so we've engineered "society" to facilitate the process. When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started. What is more important, a persons right to work for stuff, or a persons right to more stuff? By allowing the mechanization of labor, we've implicitly chosen the later. Of course, it was easy to justify. There's always more work, so industrialization is ultimately a good thing. The worker would only be temporarily shifted anyways.
There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain.
I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
As a society we work together because as a group we're stronger then individually. Its true for animals, and its true for us
I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles.
When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started.
Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ].
If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
> None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently.
I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution."
I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
I think guaranteed minimum income creates worse incentives, everyone making under the limit would be persuaded to work less or work under the table. With basic income the incentive to make more still exists at all levels of income.
I can see that. I was thinking that some hybrid would be interesting since I am just not sure a basic income would actually be affordable. Something like everyone is guaranteed X and anyone working for Y subtracts Y/F from X where F is some factor (2 or 3 maybe). I get the feeling the "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."[1] might manifest. I do wonder[2] if something radical like takers of basic income cannot vote or serve jury duty might push people to work.
1) Benjamin Franklin
2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
As stated in the Wikipedia link, there is a very clear difference between basic income and guaranteed minimum income. Basic income is a supplement that is not reduced by any work income earned. A guaranteed minimum income promises a supplemental grant for only the difference between other income and the guarantee level.
It will happen, eventually. It's either that, or some kind of Blade Runner dystopia. But the transition will not be easy. Massive upheavals might be lurking under horizon.
The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
I don't know if I really like the idea of no-string-attached basic income. Wouldn't an alternative like a guaranteed public service job that then pays you with basic income be better?
At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
And how would you ensure that there are enough public service jobs? Machines will be better at most of them than men anyway, so why society should deal with subpar human results?
It's sort of a game theory thing because the future is uncertain. With Amazon they're better off today, but maybe without Amazon they push politicians to solve the bigger issues of unemployment sooner and thus would be much better off sooner than if they slave away in the sort of futuristic assembly line dystopia that the Amazon warehouses are portrayed as.
This is not the future of Amazon. This is the current state of Amazon. If the writer is concerned about anything at all with the workers, he should be concerned about the workers losing their job.
Thousands of warehouse workers will be losing their job because their work will soon be automated. I am not saying that it is trivial to replace them. It will be a costly process to streamline and automate current process with robots, but believe me when I say it will be done.
Yup, http://www.kivasystems.com In some test warehouses, outside of the service technician, the person loading the shelf, and the person loading the truck there are essentially no employees.
The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.
- Warren G. Bennis
Think even bigger, what will happen when traditional jobs such as bartender, waiter, salesman will be replaced by automatic dispensing machines, robots and online transactions?
If you think about all the kinds of jobs that can be replaced by automation you'll see that this only leads to a grim proposition: mass unemployment.
> That kind of zero-skilled, follow-the-instructions work is going fully robotic, much more quickly than people realize. Amazon themselves are investing heavily in robotics.
Exactly.
This is what worries me about the attempt to bring unskilled manufacturing jobs back to America. It's a losing battle & the wrong battle. The focus should be on how to equip workers with skills for the 21st century.
This has been going on in warehousing and Distribution Centers for a long time -- over a decade. Same goes for many call centers.
I don't like the nature of the work, but I look at it like this: if you want robots to take dreary work from people, then that work needs to be quantified and structured. These kinds of things are the last step before total automation.
So in a way, the news is even worse than crappy jobs. These jobs are leaving. This is just the last vestiges of them. What will replace them? Beats me. I think the question itself is wrong, that is, as things change and become more efficient, there are new scarcities having nothing to do with food or shelter that people pay for. If you could predict the future of these scarcities you'd be rich beyond belief. So while it sounds like a good question, "Where do all these people go?", it's not one that's answerable in this case -- nor was it ever answerable.
One thing I know: this issue has nothing to do with Amazon. They're just being used as a prop here.
The type of work that is being described is very typical of best of breed warehouse management systems. I agree that Amazon is a prop in this story as there a tons of other large scale companies that have the same types of systems. Maybe they don't all use temp workers, but labor management systems are not rare.
For the life of me I can't fathom how moving the bulk of our workforce to temporary employees benefits us as a nation in the long run. Is there anyone here who an provide any metric to support this as a good thing?
I do see where some wish to blame the consumer for this trend which is a bit surprising to me. That idea seems paradoxical in that the majority of people do not have good paying would, by necessity, want things to cost less. Yet if you propagate this throughout ecosystem you end up in a viscous cycle where companies, in order to meet lower price points, squeeze their employees which only propagates the cycle.
Most of us on this site are not the type of unskilled laborers who are currently impacted by this. Yet such trends have a way of working their way up the the food chain so to speak. Companies will trumpet "think of the consumer" as a way to depress or wages.
It is the consumer tho'. I can't count the number of people I know who are very vocal about workers rights, human rights, living wage etc but happily wear clothes and carry personal electronics made in sweatshops. Ironically, it's the rabid capitalist types who are willing to pay for locally produced items made by skilled workers.
Stuff made in sweatshops pays a wage to extremely poor workers. Stuff made locally pays a wage to workers in a developed country with reasonable safety net protections. Why would you expect the human rights defender to privilege the comparatively wealthier worker over the poorer one?
In the abstract I can see a huge benefit to having a sizable portion of the workforce be temporary employees. Assuming we have a reasonable guaranteed minimum income, then there is not the looming threat of unemployment that makes temporary employment so bad. However, temporary employment does provide a more mobile workforce that can much more quickly re-allocate itself to new demands, and give individuals more freedom to switch jobs.
That is idealistic yet doesn't address the needs of the workers. The reality is these jobs are terrible for the workers, gives them no stability and no benefits. The whole point of the move towards temporary workers has nothing to do with "flexibility" and everything to do with costs, it is done solely to allow the employers to skirt offering them healthcare, vacation, and retirement benefits.
I don't think it's going to benefit anyone. In the short term companies can save money on employees and sell products at razor-thin margins while still making huge profits and people will be happy to buy them. In the long term though, when the current generation of workers with stable jobs will be replaced by a generation of temps, there will be no middle class, no one to buy products, as cheap as they might be.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Amazon suddenly announces a secret R&D project involving a floor of robots pretty soon. In fact, the type of monotonous line-following, retrieval and packing fits well within the line of past factory workers who've been all but replaced with robots.
I'd even cheer them on if they did that instead of dehumanizing those workers.
Go into a STEM job? Well, maybe you'll get hired, maybe you won't, you have to hope that you picked an area that was hot 4 years ahead of time and that the people managing recruitment don't have their heads up their asses. Also you need to hope that any company isn't already in the process of globalizing or outsourcing said STEM jobs because they can do those cheaper elsewhere (see IBM story yesterday).
And if you didn't go into STEM, well, fuck you because STEM is the only college that's any good by 95% of all accounts.
And if you didn't go into college, then fuck you because you're going to do back-breaking labor with no guarantee of financial security.
Something's gotta change or things are going to be grim. They're already getting grim.
This message has affected me emotionally. I don't know why. Something about the urgency of it, and the humanity.
I suppose my guess is that something will grow organically out of what we have. I don't think it will be ideological.
One example might be localization. If Amazon is subject to the same taxes as a brick and mortar business, it might become less important and local businesses more important.
If not, we're all going to end up in the Army. See you in the cybercorps!
You're missing the point: by dehumanizing workers to achieve the most profit you're making them a disposable commodity and denying large swaths of the population the means to provide for themselves.
Things have always been grim. The crows are just coming home to roost in America. Why do you think so many Indians and Chinese people are doctors or engineers? Fear. It is not about competence. It is not about passion. It is the fear that drives them. Because life is hard there without a safety net. A life where health care has to be paid for out of pocket. A life where your daughter's marriage requires piles of money.
“The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it”
What is the solution? I don't know. The future is going to belong to people who refuse to let themselves be nothing. It is not going to be about STEM jobs, math or science or art. The future is something you are going to have to find. Or become irrelevant. Scary, but sometimes that fear is useful.
If I get hit by a car here, I can ER treatment. In India, a person can spend precious minutes on clogged roads while hospitals turn that person away just because they don't deal with the fucking paperwork of dealing with a dead body.
Yes, your situation here is awful too. But that is only a taste of the hell hole that exists out there. There is a reason that immigrants still come to these shores. It is because the hell here is paradise compared to the hell out there.
I am actually an immigrant, so I feel I'm quite informed as to the existing differences, thank you. Currently, the biggest debate I have with myself is whether I should go back, or not. It's best for the present moment that I stay here. It's best for the future that I leave. Decisions, decisions...
I am asking because HN comments by people who have lived in the US and in another country are the best way I have found to learn about countries outside the US.
USA is probably the only place in the world where a car accident may do less long-term damage to quality of life than the ER bill for that accident.
In all of the "first world" and many of the "third world" ER is actually quite okay, and all of them will fix noncritical damage pretty much equally good, in EU probably even better than USA. But only in USA it carries a risk to be billed with something moderately comparable to an annual salary.
>Things have always been grim. The crows are just coming home to roost in America. Why do you think so many Indians and Chinese people are doctors or engineers?
I think the crows are coming home to roost for America in more ways then one. It isn't just the choices we make, but our very ideology that is devouring us (so to speak). We believe in the free market and competition. We're capitalists. We used to be capitalists mostly within our own borders. Now technology has transformed our chains of distribution and communication to the point where we're capitalists with no borders. Globalization is here, intensifying, and our religion of capitalism has won converts the globe over.
It isn't that Indians and Chinese are choosing more lucrative career paths (working with your assumption there, -I'm not sure myself), -they've also got the fastest growing middle class on the globe. That's not because they are doctors and engineers. They've got what were our manufacturing jobs too. This is the logical outcome of what we preach as a country.
As long as you aren't too nationalistic, it looks like a good thing as wages continually shift and flow to the cheapest labor pools on the planet, lifting those people up, but that's really overly simplistic. What concerns me is the gap between the richest and the poor and middle class. In America it's growing, but it's a concern anywhere on Earth if it gets too large.
Life in India and China for the middle class isn't as bad as your comment makes it out to be (perhaps unintentionally). Human beings have an amazing ability to adapt. Health care and other costs in many developing countries aren't totally insane. The big difference is hope for progress - the middle class is growing in many developing countries. Also, people have a support network that would seem surprising to a westerner. E.g. the joint family system.
Being a laborer is always going to be a tenuous existence. Owning capital is what buys you security. In a future where everything is automated and produced by robots, the only existence that isn't tenuous will be for people who own those robots.
I'm probably right of center, but you don't have to be a leftist to realize that Marx had great insight into the relationship between labor and capital, an insight that will be crucial to understanding how society will evolve as the necessity for labor is automated-away.
I think the key difference is that an automated loom replaced one kind of worker, while robots and computers can replace workers across the economy. It's your judgment call whether that's a qualitative difference or just a quantitative one.
Owning profitable capital buys you security, but that's basically a tautology. Plenty of people invest heavily in means of production and fail. In fact, the risk of investing in capital is almost certainly much greater than the risk of just trading your labor for a paycheck.
Also you need to hope that any company isn't already in the process of globalizing or outsourcing said STEM jobs because they can do those cheaper elsewhere
Yeah, man, fuck them for giving jobs to poorer people!
It is asserted multiple times in the article, but is there any evidence that Amazon uses temp workers at all their facilities or just in this one UK example? I haven't seen any accounts of heavy use in US warehouses, but they could be out there.
There's been a whole lot of articles about heavy use of temps in US warehouses. I think I recall one from a few months ago which talked about how the average temp in some CA warehouses was around 90 degrees most of the day and was staffed almost entirely by temp workers.
Edit: found it.
> Amazon uses temporary employees in its Breinigsville warehouse, works them to the point of heat exhaustion--no, really, it parks ambulances outside--and then lets them go after they've failed to perform.
As a former manager for Amazon across multiple fulfillment centers, they ALL use temps. They don't all use the same temp agencies, and sometimes they use more than one at the same facility. In about 2006 some facilities would do a direct hire into Amazon. But the model now is the try-before-you-buy. A new temp is told that after so many hours they are eligible for "conversion" to a full time Amazon associate. But, there is also a max allowable hours before they are let go. So within that window they have to keep minimal attendance points and minimal warnings (write-ups). If there is space, a manager will always try to convert the best of his/her temps.
No, it isn't glorious work. Yes, I felt like I was managing a literal sweatshop in the summer. But, working in a warehouse/distribution environment is tough everywhere. I really wasn't a fan of how Amazon treated any of the fulfillment workers (managers or associates) and that ultimately led to me leaving. Don't miss it at all.
I spend a lot of time thinking about this too - because computer/ robotic automation is not just going to take warehouse jobs, it will eventually come for all of our jobs.
But this doesn't have to be a bad thing, if you think about it from a community perspective, how great would it be if all our basic needs were automated and low cost? Theoretically, this should free people up to pursue other interests, like science, art, sports, religion -- kind of like the premise Star Trek TNG.
Unfortunately, this isn't the reality today. If things keep going like they are, then this automation will enable a small oligarchy even greater wealth and power, and leverage over the civilization. I don't mean this to be alarmist, this is a really logical progression, and 'they way things are' has created some pretty amazing achievements for us to-date. I think this will be the next big social evolution and I can't wait to see how it unfolds.
This reminds me a lot of the story Manna. In the story, robotics and machine vision is still behind human workers, however computers are able to perfectly optimize every other detail, and so tell human workers what to do step by step through an earpiece.
I love the idea actually, but I think most people would find it unsettling. But why not have perfectly optimized work routines and get the same amount of stuff done in half the time? Unfortunately I doubt the benefits would go to the workers and they'd still have to work the same amount of time, but that's true for all increases in efficiency.
This sounds bizarrely similar to a portion of the Ken Burns documentary about the dust bowl. Basically, towards the end of the great depression tons of people migrated to California looking for work. Upon arriving they found little employment and those that did find work were doing hard labour,farms along with employment agencies were working together to drive down the cost human labour even further.
This created an enormous class of extremely poor that could be let go at any moment for any reason. While farms and employment agencies raked in profits.
Just because a company is acting within the law doesn't mean they are ethical or moral.
Maybe robots are better than human subjugation, maybe this is the beginning of new type of economy.
If the future of work is work I'm extremely depressed / afraid. We are beyond the point of continued human labor to support ever increasing consumption. Buckminster Fuller showed the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller
They (media, leftist groups) tried to create a scandal about this in Germany and succeeded to some extent. I found it kind of amusing that the mere description of people having to do actual work already seems to be so shocking to middle class people. If you don't work with your brain, you work with your body... I don't think working a farm or maybe a slaughterhouse or whatever other manual labor jobs there are are much better than an Amazon warehouse. I saw a documentary about garbage men recently and apparently they have to be fit like Marathon runners. Some jobs simply are hard.
Now I am glad I don't have to do that kind of job, but people should question what they are really asking for. They should then really support basic income, and also be prepared to pay a lot more for stuff. In fact, I wish instead of complaining people would just cough up more money. I wonder how big the engagement would then still be.
Or, you know, go full communism and have everybody take turns at doing the hard manual labor, no matter what education they have. In Christmass time, there would be a random selection of people who would be sent to Santa's warehouse (I mean Amazon) to work.
So how long after robot warehouse workers do you think we'll have robots enforcing laws? I'm getting a picture of Soylent Green but with robots instead of humans controlling the crowds.
> “The feedback we’re getting is it’s like being in a slave camp,” said Brian Garner, the dapper chairman of the Lea Hall Miners Welfare Centre and Social Club, still a popular drinking spot.
Just like a slave camp. You know, besides the fact that you get paid, can own property, have the full rights of citizens, can quit at any time, and go home at the end of the day.
> There is much to admire in Amazon’s rise, but in some dark corners of that sprawling empire the top line numbers and razor-thin earnings are being boosted by a dystopian model of neofeudalism that is jarringly out of step with the company’s shiny, ‘leaning into the future’ brand.
A "dystopian model of neofeudalism"? For reals, guys?
I have complained about jobs that were doubtless better in every way than warehouse jobs at Amazon, and I'm sure that there are legitimate complaints, but it's hard to take this article seriously. The axe to grind is so prominently on display that it's difficult to know what part of the story can be read as an objective description of the facts.
> Just like a slave camp. You know, besides the fact that you get paid...
Each successive future we strive for should have standards higher than the previous. We can do better than putting literal slave labor behind us. We should achieve a standard where the metaphor doesn't even apply.
The contracting culture is indeed awful. It gives companies a way to fire workers without making the headlines. Also let's them not dirty their hands with benifits. But it's unfair to blame Amazon alone. Many organizations do this, including the US Federal Government. The DC metro area is filled with offices where the "employees" walk in and the "contractors" badge in. The tech contractors still make handsome cash, but the job scurity is not where it should be
112 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] threadConsumers are constantly pushing down the prices on everything, expecting more and more for less and less. Faced with this reality, companies have to streamline and become more effective in order to succeed and profit. This is what Amazon are doing.
We moan about having to pay for baggage, choosing seats, food and even using the bathroom on flights now - but this is solely because of our want to push down the headline price of flights. The price has been reduced...but the cost is still there.
AFAIK, Amazon aren't doing any illegal, they're just working very efficiently.
If Amazon wants to be efficient, it can be on the back of its margins, not at the expense of humans.
EDIT: Ran into this on reddit, thought it was very timely:
"Sorry, It's Not A 'Law Of Capitalism' That You Pay Your Employees As Little As Possible"
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-need-to-pay-people-...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
From my experience with warehouses/fulfillment centers, all the other options are same or worse than Amazon with regards to worker treatment. Besides, on Amazon plenty of merchants do their own fulfillment, and those that do fulfill with Amazon are going to fulfill with Amazon on eBay or Rakuten or their own website anyway. To do so morally you'll have to look into the fulfillment details of any individual company you do business with.
Honestly, it just sucks to be an unskilled worker in today's society, its not something new to Amazon.
Here are some Glassdoor reviews for Costco Wholesale:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Costco-Wholesale-Reviews-E2...
I'm sure this isn't a good comparison. But Costco is doing fine and has a large market cap (52B).
This isn't new to Amazon.com, but Amazon.com is exemplary in treating employees in high-demand (i.e. easily replaceable) positions poorly. We should talk about their warehouses because their policies alone could nudge the industry to being more compassionate.
Bezos repeats that "long-term" "willing to be misunderstood" stuff a lot, but how many companies have tried really treating replaceable workers well? Maybe the current conditions inhibit workers from fulfilling their potential and making larger impacts than carrying boxes.
That kind of zero-skilled, follow-the-instructions work is going fully robotic, much more quickly than people realize. Amazon themselves are investing heavily in robotics.
Of course that merely shows that there is a problem, it doesn't show what to blame or how to fix it in general.
In all seriousness, the world needs ditch diggers too.
Though the number of these jobs is not going to be enough.
There's a caveat to that though. When mechanization became intelligent mechanization (what I call having a Computer whether mechanical or digital control the process) the shifts started happening more frequently, and the replacement jobs became harder to obtain.
I think ultimately this is the key point, as a society we LET mechanization happen, and ultimately it has taken us to a point where not everyone is CAPABLE of having a highly skilled job. There's ways to alleviate it, part of the problem is an outdated education system. Another part of the problem is probably cultural, there might be a lack of high skilled jobs too.
None the less, there WILL be a growing population of people who we've taken away their capability to work for a living. So when we offer a basic income, its not us graciously giving them a gift of our hard work. Its giving them the lives they are owed because of the decisions we have collectively made a hundred years ago.
We're certainly not there now.
I completely agree. What I need to be able to enjoy food more is not better food, but that nearly 1 billion people aren't undernourished [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation ]. However, I don't see that sentiment shared a lot. The world in large part seems to operate in slightly different principles.
When the industrial revolution happened, a debate kind of started.
Very extreme exploitation started, and many people had to struggle and even risk their lives to change that from utter callousness to calculated and physically healthier exploitation. Now, corporate profits keep soaring, but they are accumulate in fewer and fewer hands, and today 40% of US workers earn less than 1968 minimum wage [ http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-05/40-us-workers-now-e... ].
If capitalism became more humane because people applied pressure, why would it become even more humane when there is nobody left to apply any kind of pressure? Why is basic income a more likely outcome than, say, mass sterilization? Make me believe, I really want to. I could use some optimism but I'm all out.
I'm personally strongly in favour of basic income, but the two biggest arguments people give me are "How will we pay for it" and "why should we give money to people too lazy to work". Your final comment is how I defuse those, though I word it slightly differently.
I say something along the following: "Computers and machines have obsoleted old jobs, and we as a society haven't found new ones for all these people yet. So, I don't know how much you know about history, but when you take a bunch of people, take away their money, and let them be bored all day... bad things happen. Don't think of it as a gift. Think of it as a tax that prevents revolution."
I may have a little bit of a penchant for melodrama
1) Benjamin Franklin
2) not advocating - this part violates some of my basic beliefs
The possibility of the transition is predicated, on the technical side, on massive advancements in AI and robotics.
At least we'd be making society a better place while guaranteeing an income of some kind.
This is not the future of Amazon. This is the current state of Amazon. If the writer is concerned about anything at all with the workers, he should be concerned about the workers losing their job.
Thousands of warehouse workers will be losing their job because their work will soon be automated. I am not saying that it is trivial to replace them. It will be a costly process to streamline and automate current process with robots, but believe me when I say it will be done.
It's really cool how it works too.
If you think about all the kinds of jobs that can be replaced by automation you'll see that this only leads to a grim proposition: mass unemployment.
Exactly.
This is what worries me about the attempt to bring unskilled manufacturing jobs back to America. It's a losing battle & the wrong battle. The focus should be on how to equip workers with skills for the 21st century.
I don't like the nature of the work, but I look at it like this: if you want robots to take dreary work from people, then that work needs to be quantified and structured. These kinds of things are the last step before total automation.
So in a way, the news is even worse than crappy jobs. These jobs are leaving. This is just the last vestiges of them. What will replace them? Beats me. I think the question itself is wrong, that is, as things change and become more efficient, there are new scarcities having nothing to do with food or shelter that people pay for. If you could predict the future of these scarcities you'd be rich beyond belief. So while it sounds like a good question, "Where do all these people go?", it's not one that's answerable in this case -- nor was it ever answerable.
One thing I know: this issue has nothing to do with Amazon. They're just being used as a prop here.
I do see where some wish to blame the consumer for this trend which is a bit surprising to me. That idea seems paradoxical in that the majority of people do not have good paying would, by necessity, want things to cost less. Yet if you propagate this throughout ecosystem you end up in a viscous cycle where companies, in order to meet lower price points, squeeze their employees which only propagates the cycle.
Most of us on this site are not the type of unskilled laborers who are currently impacted by this. Yet such trends have a way of working their way up the the food chain so to speak. Companies will trumpet "think of the consumer" as a way to depress or wages.
(I'm a Euro dude, sorry, could not resist.)
Well, the Borg Collective has perfected that technique, actually. But yeah.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Amazon suddenly announces a secret R&D project involving a floor of robots pretty soon. In fact, the type of monotonous line-following, retrieval and packing fits well within the line of past factory workers who've been all but replaced with robots.
I'd even cheer them on if they did that instead of dehumanizing those workers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KRjuuEVEZs&feature=youtu.be&... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/amazon-com-buys-kiva-...
And I'm sure those workers would be grateful for your cheering when they're standing in the unemployment line.
At one of them, I still felt like a human being. Guess which.
Go into a STEM job? Well, maybe you'll get hired, maybe you won't, you have to hope that you picked an area that was hot 4 years ahead of time and that the people managing recruitment don't have their heads up their asses. Also you need to hope that any company isn't already in the process of globalizing or outsourcing said STEM jobs because they can do those cheaper elsewhere (see IBM story yesterday).
And if you didn't go into STEM, well, fuck you because STEM is the only college that's any good by 95% of all accounts.
And if you didn't go into college, then fuck you because you're going to do back-breaking labor with no guarantee of financial security.
Something's gotta change or things are going to be grim. They're already getting grim.
I suppose my guess is that something will grow organically out of what we have. I don't think it will be ideological.
One example might be localization. If Amazon is subject to the same taxes as a brick and mortar business, it might become less important and local businesses more important.
If not, we're all going to end up in the Army. See you in the cybercorps!
“The world is what it is; men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it”
What is the solution? I don't know. The future is going to belong to people who refuse to let themselves be nothing. It is not going to be about STEM jobs, math or science or art. The future is something you are going to have to find. Or become irrelevant. Scary, but sometimes that fear is useful.
As opposed to the US, where the safety net is so ample and awesome and...
...oh wait. Nevermind.
Yes, your situation here is awful too. But that is only a taste of the hell hole that exists out there. There is a reason that immigrants still come to these shores. It is because the hell here is paradise compared to the hell out there.
I am asking because HN comments by people who have lived in the US and in another country are the best way I have found to learn about countries outside the US.
In all of the "first world" and many of the "third world" ER is actually quite okay, and all of them will fix noncritical damage pretty much equally good, in EU probably even better than USA. But only in USA it carries a risk to be billed with something moderately comparable to an annual salary.
I think the crows are coming home to roost for America in more ways then one. It isn't just the choices we make, but our very ideology that is devouring us (so to speak). We believe in the free market and competition. We're capitalists. We used to be capitalists mostly within our own borders. Now technology has transformed our chains of distribution and communication to the point where we're capitalists with no borders. Globalization is here, intensifying, and our religion of capitalism has won converts the globe over.
It isn't that Indians and Chinese are choosing more lucrative career paths (working with your assumption there, -I'm not sure myself), -they've also got the fastest growing middle class on the globe. That's not because they are doctors and engineers. They've got what were our manufacturing jobs too. This is the logical outcome of what we preach as a country.
As long as you aren't too nationalistic, it looks like a good thing as wages continually shift and flow to the cheapest labor pools on the planet, lifting those people up, but that's really overly simplistic. What concerns me is the gap between the richest and the poor and middle class. In America it's growing, but it's a concern anywhere on Earth if it gets too large.
Life in India and China for the middle class isn't as bad as your comment makes it out to be (perhaps unintentionally). Human beings have an amazing ability to adapt. Health care and other costs in many developing countries aren't totally insane. The big difference is hope for progress - the middle class is growing in many developing countries. Also, people have a support network that would seem surprising to a westerner. E.g. the joint family system.
I'm probably right of center, but you don't have to be a leftist to realize that Marx had great insight into the relationship between labor and capital, an insight that will be crucial to understanding how society will evolve as the necessity for labor is automated-away.
People have been worried about the necessity for labor being automated away for centuries. Do you really think that this time it's different?
I'm always pretty skeptical of that kind of argument, though in this case I do have some uncertainty.
Just like the kind of machine that wove cloth isn't the same kind of machine that forms plywood.
Just like the kind of software that checks my taxes won't be the same as the code that reads my MRI looking for cancer.
I'm not sure if the difference you describe fully explains what we might see.
Owning profitable capital buys you security, but that's basically a tautology. Plenty of people invest heavily in means of production and fail. In fact, the risk of investing in capital is almost certainly much greater than the risk of just trading your labor for a paycheck.
Yeah, man, fuck them for giving jobs to poorer people!
[1] http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
Edit: found it.
> Amazon uses temporary employees in its Breinigsville warehouse, works them to the point of heat exhaustion--no, really, it parks ambulances outside--and then lets them go after they've failed to perform.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/09/what-it-ta...
And it seems there's an update - http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/06/amazons-wa...
No, it isn't glorious work. Yes, I felt like I was managing a literal sweatshop in the summer. But, working in a warehouse/distribution environment is tough everywhere. I really wasn't a fan of how Amazon treated any of the fulfillment workers (managers or associates) and that ultimately led to me leaving. Don't miss it at all.
But this doesn't have to be a bad thing, if you think about it from a community perspective, how great would it be if all our basic needs were automated and low cost? Theoretically, this should free people up to pursue other interests, like science, art, sports, religion -- kind of like the premise Star Trek TNG.
Unfortunately, this isn't the reality today. If things keep going like they are, then this automation will enable a small oligarchy even greater wealth and power, and leverage over the civilization. I don't mean this to be alarmist, this is a really logical progression, and 'they way things are' has created some pretty amazing achievements for us to-date. I think this will be the next big social evolution and I can't wait to see how it unfolds.
I love the idea actually, but I think most people would find it unsettling. But why not have perfectly optimized work routines and get the same amount of stuff done in half the time? Unfortunately I doubt the benefits would go to the workers and they'd still have to work the same amount of time, but that's true for all increases in efficiency.
This created an enormous class of extremely poor that could be let go at any moment for any reason. While farms and employment agencies raked in profits.
Just because a company is acting within the law doesn't mean they are ethical or moral.
Maybe robots are better than human subjugation, maybe this is the beginning of new type of economy.
Now I am glad I don't have to do that kind of job, but people should question what they are really asking for. They should then really support basic income, and also be prepared to pay a lot more for stuff. In fact, I wish instead of complaining people would just cough up more money. I wonder how big the engagement would then still be.
Or, you know, go full communism and have everybody take turns at doing the hard manual labor, no matter what education they have. In Christmass time, there would be a random selection of people who would be sent to Santa's warehouse (I mean Amazon) to work.
Indeed. "They don't have air conditioning!"
Oh...so the Amazon warehouse workers are like every other warehouse worker, factory worker, agricultural worker, miner, oil drilling hand...
Just like a slave camp. You know, besides the fact that you get paid, can own property, have the full rights of citizens, can quit at any time, and go home at the end of the day.
> There is much to admire in Amazon’s rise, but in some dark corners of that sprawling empire the top line numbers and razor-thin earnings are being boosted by a dystopian model of neofeudalism that is jarringly out of step with the company’s shiny, ‘leaning into the future’ brand.
A "dystopian model of neofeudalism"? For reals, guys?
I have complained about jobs that were doubtless better in every way than warehouse jobs at Amazon, and I'm sure that there are legitimate complaints, but it's hard to take this article seriously. The axe to grind is so prominently on display that it's difficult to know what part of the story can be read as an objective description of the facts.
Each successive future we strive for should have standards higher than the previous. We can do better than putting literal slave labor behind us. We should achieve a standard where the metaphor doesn't even apply.