Comment by stfwn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by stfwn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You gave them a 2% raise, the article mentions $18.60. We don't know if this is before or after tax, so let's say it's before.

If they work 40h a week, rent a single bedroom apartment at ~$1600 and the cost of living for one is ~$800 this leaves 2976 - 2400 = ~576 a month without special circumstances. In this case they don't have a car, drinks or meals outside the home, going out (movies/etc.), alcohol, dog, sport membership or travel and certainly no family. If they have one family member at ~600 a month they are down 24 dollars a month so they'd better not. [1]

Simply seeing that Amazon is doing so mindbogglingly well for itself that the value of their assets has grown by 52.65% in 2017[2] and while still holding ~22 billion dollars in reserve[3], workers are not adding some value (as is required in a Keynesian capitalist system) but an insane amount of value. And it is all trickling up while workers cannot afford to have a family.

[1]: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Long-Island-NY-Unit...

[2]: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amzn/financials/...

[3]: https://www.geekwire.com/2017/256-billion-apple-cash-amazon-...

New Yorkers earning $18.60/hr are not going to pay $1,600/month for a single-bedroom apt in NYC. Yes, NYC is an expensive city, but not every Amazon warehouse worker has to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn Heights. There are actually plenty of affordable housings in many lesser-known neighborhoods -- eg, Sheepshead Bay is known for a large community of retirees; Brighton Beach for Russian immigrants, etc. Amazon's warehouse is in Staten Island where the cost of living is generally even lower.

Sure, you need a lot of money to enjoy life in NYC and $18/hr isn't exactly a lot of money. Even then, for folks without any other marketable skills, this isn't the slave wage as you falsely depict here.

At this wage, it would be unwise to live alone in a single bedroom apartment and would be much smarter, although more difficult, to get roommates to reduce rent costs by 25-50%.

LOL this is such a typical HN reply. "Just get room mates". Come on, the solution is to pay people so they can live a decent life and have a family if they want to.

Why would it be my employers obligation to pay me what I think I need because I want luxuries (like a $1600 apartment by myself)?

The typical HN reply may be trying to help figure out a problem like “if I only have X dollars how can I maximize.”

Reality is that unskilled labor doesn’t get everything they want. Fortunately, they get everything they need. A better example would be healthcare, but I think Amazon’s fulfillment center workers have pretty good insurance.

Its a luxury to live without 2 roommates? I mean, I guess they won't die if that's what you mean.

Yes. Definitely. It’s not essential. And it costs more.

It’s not a Rolex, but I was pretty happy when I was finally able to live alone.

I was thinking in terms of Maslow [0] as it’s somewhere, I think, around esteem.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

We are not morally obligated to ensure that every single entry-level, unskilled job pays enough for a middle class lifestyle, regardless of mistakes made prior.

The solution is to not work long-term in an entry-level, unskilled job.

> Come on, the solution is to pay people so they can live a decent life and have a family if they want to.

That's not up for a company to decide, they don't control all the prices and sentiments that determine what is and isn't "decent to live". They can decide what they can pay to hire an extra worker and make more money as a result. If they don't believe they'll make more money as a result, then there's no hire.

Then capitalism has failed humanity.

I’m really interested in what you think the job of market systems is. And to whom they are trying to serve.

It seems odd that capitalism would have such a duty to humanity because it’s like saying “art has failed humanity.” Or “this screwdriver has failed breakfast.”

What exactly is captitalism serving if not the intersts of humans?

Capitalism is a system created by humans, presumably for the benefit of humans. If it doesn't do a very good job of making the lives of humans better then it could be considered a failure.

As we're seeing now, wealth and income inequality are at terrible levels. Wage stagnation has been hurting the middle class. Housing is becoming increasingly expensive as jobs centralize on cities. Gentrification pushes out the working class.

We have climate change bearing down on us, the effects of which are already being seen through mass migration, fires, hurricanes, and other disasters. Meanwhile the fossil fuel industry would have us believe there are "two sides" to this argument so that they can continue to profit instead of adapting and doing the right thing. The first to feel it certainly won't be those of us making several hundred thousand dollars per year and looking down on those living paycheck to paycheck. It'll be those living paycheck to paycheck who feel it first.

Neither artists nor bartenders have the power over humanity that capitalists do.

> Neither artists nor bartenders have the power over humanity that capitalists do.

With great power comes great responsibility. This is precisely why we must hold capitalists accountable.

A warehouse worker doesn't add a lot of value. To be specific, the average profit extracted from one of Amazon's 500,000 workers is 6000$ and that includes all the far more profitable business segments.

You also should be properly reading that balance sheet. Those $22 billion in cash stand against $36 billion in short term liabilities, for example. Long term debt is over $37 billion.

> A warehouse worker doesn't add a lot of value.

And yet, they are critical to the operation of the company (until their jobs have been automated). If all of them decided to go on strike then Amazon would have fullfillment issues -- at least until the people on strike have been replaced.

Yes, but that is besides the point. These jobs can either be low-paid or non-existing. The money that could make these jobs well-paid does not exist because the value is not there. Going on strike cannot change that either.

That's exactly the point of the union, isn't it? An individual worker's demands is nothing compared to one demand with all the workers behind it.

Since the value of the entire workforce is higher than the sum of the value of the individual workers, thus convincing the business that raising the wages/improving conditions is in their own interest, compared to something like a strike.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com