Hacker News Reader

Comment by jschwartzi | Hacker News Reader

No Amazon definitely destroys most returns. I was informed that anything you can take to a Kohl’s is destroyed after return. That’s why sometimes it’s not available as an option.

View on HN

That's not true -- you were informed wrong, sorry.

Tons of items on Amazon list "Amazon Warehouse" as a cheaper buying option, which are literally the returned items they're reselling, with a listed condition determined from inspection. This includes items that were returned at Kohl's.

Amazon destroys some returns, but that happens after the inspection process, if they determine the specific item was damaged enough that it's not profitable to resell.

Yup... it's just that inspecting the item also has a cost, which may lead to the item not being profitable to resell anymore, in which case it is destroyed without inspection. Or it's the individual employees who choose to play it safe and prefer to destroy an item rather than risk customer complaints if it get resold in less-than-mint condition.

Inspection is quite cheap. In cases where it's not worth returning+inspecting, Amazon generally tells you to just keep the item as well as the refund. That's generally the case with items under $10. If you abuse this, your account will ultimately be banned. If Amazon's bothering to accept the return in the first place, it's because it's worth inspecting.

Also, individual employees don't get to "play it safe" in either direction. There are expected rates for grading returned items. An employee will be penalized or lose their job for wrongly marking resellable items as non-resellable (destroy), just as much as the opposite.

There are vast numbers of returns from Amazon and all sorts of other companies that are not sold by them again, (whether as new or via their “Amazon Warehouses” discounted price) nor destroyed. These items are sold in bulk by the pallet and semi-load to other companies who can do then triage the products and decide what to do with them. Sometimes they end up back on Amazon, for sale by a third party. One local company auctions items online on their own site for pickup only. Others go onto eBay, etc.

>No Amazon definitely destroys most returns. I was informed that anything you can take to a Kohl’s is destroyed after return.

I don't think the existence of a Kohl's dropoff option means Amazon destroys 51%+ of their returns. Examples of people buying pallets of Amazon returns that are not destroyed: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=amazon+returns

Like many retailers, Amazon outsources many reverse logistics[1] operations. Some returned product is sold off. Some is destroyed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_logistics

For 5 years now I've actually been receiving Amazon returns at my office for some reason, and only for Raspberry Pi sound card components. I've tried contacting Amazon every way, including emailing the personal address of Jeff's (which led me to priority support), but they still keep shipping me these returns.

Either the universe or Amazon wants you to have a side hustle in Raspberry Pis.

I fail to see the problem here.

I forgot to mention they're all labeled "defective"*

I’m pretty sure I just saved a previously returned item from this fate. I bought something just yesterday from Amazon labeled as “new, but with a damaged box”. The item was heavily discounted, I think around 40% off. I could care less what the box looks like or if the individual parts aren’t wrapped perfectly if the item is in good working condition.

  >I could care less

You COULDN'T care less.

Why can so many otherwise seemingly intelligent Americans not grasp this simple grammatical concept?

Considering that you very clearly understood the intent from context, it seems rather petty to point this out in an otherwise completely unrelated discussion.

The fact I "understood the intent" doesn't make it grate any less, whenever I set this phrase misused time after time by Americans. "I could care less" is literally the opposite of the sentiment you are trying to express.

> Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined.

Thanks for your feedback. However, I’m going to stick with Webster on this one. Let’s also not forget that English has always been a hodgepodge of language mashups and slang.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/could-couldnt-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com