Hacker News Reader

Comment by whyenot | Hacker News Reader

Amazon seems to almost always be the target of these articles, how about highlighting someone else for a change. For example, drive along El Camino Real next to Stanford University and you will see a long line of campers parked along the road. Many of the people living there work either directly or indirectly for the University. Stanford has literally thousands of acres of empty land where they could build housing for their temporary and low income employees, yet they chose not to. They could at least provide a campground with proper facilities and hookups (so sewage doesn't go down storm drains, for instance). Of course the real solution, which is to pay ALL your employees a living wage, that apparently is crazy talk in The Valley.

View on HN

Paying higher wages doesn't create more housing. At best these people could displace some others if paid more.

The real real solution is to legalize housing construction in the area.

Another real solution would be public policies that encourage economic development in other metropolitan areas so that we don't have to squeeze more and more people into a few small areas. It isn't healthy for the country as a whole to build up Palo Alto more and more while we allow Modesto (for example) to stagnate.

I understand there are certain benefits to density and geographic concentration of related companies, but those aren't the only factors we should consider.

I'd take this argument more seriously if Palo Alto was even moderately densely urban.

I think amazon is the target because they apparently have program dedicated to hiring temporary workers who lives in RVs:

http://www.amazondelivers.jobs/about/camperforce/

(it's almost unbelievable)

Aren't there people who _want_ to do this?

Or is it good marketing?

I know people that actually do like these sorts of mobile adventures. It's pretty common in the health industry to have traveling doctors and nurses that hop from state to state to fill in for vacationing docs or temporary needs. It's called locum tenens. You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locum

This scenario is slightly different, but there are certain types of people that prefer to not be tied down or simply have a craving to spend a piece of their lives roving around geographically. Similar mentality to liveaboard sailors and people that seek out work in Antarctica.

My wife is a CNA. If you're flexible about suddenly hopping on a plane for a few weeks or months and living in a rented room, there's some good money in it (several times her usual pay rate and housing paid for). But at least in that case, the wages are pretty good. Amazon's are pretty low, and they don't pay to house the workers.

The article points out that Amazon DOES pay for their RV park fees (these tend to be: $15-50/day). Additionally, the people in this article say the pay is good (compared to what they'd be making elsewhere for unskilled labor). It's not what your wife would make, but she has special training and certification. I do know a family that lives out of an RV supported by a locus tenens RN. The dad (former schoolteacher) homeschools the kids. They could settle down in a single location if they wanted, or rent out locations during the wife's appointments, but this RV trip is their adventure.

My point is that there is a type of person that actually enjoys this type of lifestyle. I don't think Amazon is being nefarious and taking advantage of impoverished RV migrants as much as it's creating a mutually beneficial arrangement.

I am sure someone enjoys it but it is less fun when you dont have a choice

Amazon provides proper campsite and hookups. The only think wrong with Amazon's program is the low wages, not the living situation for seasonal work.

Don't let the absurdity of hiring workers who can only afford to live in RVs escape you.

To be fair, maybe it makes some sense for seasonal work. Or maybe that's just marketing. If the wages are decent, then maybe it's okay.

Now that’s scalability.

Oh God. That's truly terrible. Funny that they just acknowledge it up front like that. "Slave wages" with the resulting living conditions...come aboard.

It's my understanding that it's the local municipalities who don't let them build, fearing traffic congestion and losses in land value, generally being wrong on both accounts.

You don't think traffic congestion is a problem in the bay area?

Of course it is - but if Stanford build more housing for employees on its land, there would actually be less traffic since fewer people would be commuting to work.

When the owner of Amazon it's the richest person on the planet I would say it's fair game.

Also, Amazon has amazing public perception, letting the public know how they can be so cheap and good it's worth doing, just like the campaigns of the past against sweatshop usage by famous clothing brands.

> When the owner of Amazon it's the richest person on the planet I would say it's fair game.

How is the structure of ownership of the company changes the rules of the game for the company? Company's goal is to create value for shareholders.

If you want punish people for having more than others, there's already an instrument for that, progressive taxation.

> If you want punish people for having more than others, there's already an instrument for that, progressive taxation

Except that rich people (and companies) don't pay taxes.

Stanford does not have the money - you see they are busy creating a new form of non-scholarships that allow special people who would donate in future to go to school at much lower rate for education

Why is this top response just a deflection?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com