The Secret Lives of Amazon's Elves

theodp writes "If Amazon is Santa, says Gizmodo's Joel Johnson, then the 400 folks living in RVs outside the Coffeyville, KS fulfillment center at Christmas time are the elves. Amazon didn't always lure in 'workcampers' from the RV community with the promise of free campgrounds and $10.50-$11 an hour seasonal jobs. 'Amazon had a bad experience busing in people from Tulsa,' explained tech nomad Chris Dunphy. 'There was a lot of theft and a lot of people who weren't really serious.' Workers from Tulsa were adding a 4-hour round-trip commute to a grueling 10-to-12 hour shift, Cherie Ve Ard added. 'They'd get there exhausted.' The work wasn't exactly what Cherie had envisioned."

Comments

eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

They accepted terms of employment. A willing employer got a willing employee. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this, if the employees are unhappy they can always get another job, no shortages of those!

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[jhoegl]

You must be new to the USA.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[calmofthestorm]

He's being ironic with the plenty of jobs. His point is that morality and workers' rights should be set to whatever the market will bear. Since jobs are in demand, it is possible (and ethical) for companies to offer less desirable jobs.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[MerlynEmrys67]

He's being ironic with the plenty of jobs. His point is that morality and workers' rights should be set to whatever the market will bear. Since jobs are in demand, it is possible (and ethical) for companies to offer less desirable jobs.

So you are saying if the economy was better - amazon wouldn't have people packing boxes and picking out items from the shelves?

I think what you meant to say might have been to offer less desirable pay.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[calmofthestorm]

I'm only trying to interpret his comment. Consider the middle ground of Amazon finding its jobs less in demand (due to more jobs due to better economy) and needing to increase demand by making more lenient policies, paying more, or both.

Personally I think it's disgusting and thought we had laws against that sort of thing (the 12+ hour days, getting fired for sick leave, overtime at normal rate, excessive quotas, etc) after the Walmart case, but don't know enough to comment fully.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[winwar]

"Personally I think it's disgusting and thought we had laws against that sort of thing (the 12+ hour days, getting fired for sick leave, overtime at normal rate, excessive quotas, etc) after the Walmart case, but don't know enough to comment fully."

But that doesn't seem to stop you from commenting anyway....

On the positive side at least you express your ignorance.

In general employers have to legally do the following:

Pay overtime for hours worked over 40 hours (non-exempt).
Pay minimum wage.
Provide a lunch period (probably at least 20 minutes) if you work over a set number of hours (probably 5 or so hours).
Provide a break of at least 10 minutes per so many hours (generally per four hours). If you have breaks in your work time that add up to this time, you do NOT have to be provided any specific break time.
A safe work place free from known hazards. No discrimination due to sex, race, etc. See basic work posters.

Various states have greater requirements. The best place to look for those requirements is on the state web page of the appropriate enforcement agency.

The following is not required:
Sick leave
Vacation
Holiday
Time off of any kind (outside of legally mandated FMLA, worker compensation, etc.) Yes, this means they can work you seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.
Insurance
Pleasant work environment
Reasonable quotas
Etc.

Except where required by law, as noted above.

All of those nice things that people THINK they are entitled to are just that, ENTITLEMENTS. They were negotiated via (union) contract and became standard in the industry or are used to attract superior talent or are done because employers WANT to.

In any case, the working conditions described at Amazon are not bad. Pay is roughly twice minimum wage. Twelve hour shifts, six days a week at peak times would not be unusual-the positions exist to ship the product for Christmas. The attendance/break policy is somewhat petty but considering the typical warehouse/temp employee, not surprising. In any case, having worked in environments like these, these policies are often rather flexible (or ignored). And people whining about heaving lifting in a warehouse, well, DUH!

Basically people are whining that they have to work their asses off for $11 an hour. Most of the crappy stuff that employers do to employees is perfectly legal (and vice versa). Welcome to the real world.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Dan541]

$11 an hour shouldn't even be legal.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[jhoegl]

Actually, its 30 minute lunch breaks, and breaks in between are not required.

For 12 hour work days it does differ on the lunches. I believe if you work x hrs you are entitled to a lunch break.

There is no set hours you can work a day unless under the age of 18. You can work an 80 hr work week, but if paid hourly you must receive over time. If salary and working 80 hour work weeks, you get paid salary. Over time for salary is optional by employer.

In other words, watch your asses, because no one else is.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, he's a Nazi:

http://twitter.com/joeljohnson/status/7002425196

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[headpushslap]

I hope that's some sarcasm about ethics being determined by market conditions. It's certainly not ethical to offer crummy jobs to people just because you can. That's pretty much the opposite of ethical.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[shentino]

I guess it's socially acceptable to be a heartless bastard when your workers don't have any choice but to put up with you if you are.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[lawpoop]

if the employees are unhappy they can always get another job, no shortages of those

This is sarcasm, right? The nation's running at about 10 unemployment, at about 17 percent. So yeah, there is a shortage of jobs. You can't just go anywhere and find another if you don't like your current one.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[jcr]

It's certainly not ethical to offer crummy jobs to people just because you can.

Of course it is. You can offer whatever you want, and if you're not putting a gun to anyone's head, they're free to decline the offer.

When the minimum wage enters the picture though, the government makes it illegal to employ anyone whose labor isn't worth the level they choose.

-jcr

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, you're wrong. There is no federal law requiring employers to give breaks:

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/breaks.htm

Nice try though.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[CodeBuster]

if the employees are unhappy they can always get another job, no shortages of those!

Amen. At least they don't have to deal directly with the general public. If I had to choose between packing boxes or dealing with rude and disgusting people all day, then box packing would win every time. Besides, I don't know about the rest of you here on Slashdot, but I could stand to lose a few pounds and walking 14 miles a day during a ten hour shift would probably go a long way towards accomplishing that.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Except that there are more laws than just federal. Also, state and municipal laws too. In my state, Nevada, there are state laws that enforce break periods.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Ihmhi]

A good friend of mine started out as a temp worker doing boxing and stuff for Amazon. It's typically simple stuff like taking items out of a big box, scanning the individual items, shelving them,.etc. Lots of work with a barcode scanner.

The cool thing Amazon does, though, is encourage competition. They have leaderboards. His first week there my buddy was something like #4 out of a few dozen people at that particular warehouse. A few months later he was brought on board as a permanent employee because he was doing the job like a 5-year veteran.

There are a hell of a lot of companies out there that wouldn't go so far as to give incentives for hard work like that..

Even after he's been hired, there's still the incentive to bust your butt. Not only because of the pride of being on the leaderboard, but you get bonuses for working quickly. He's often gotten paid hours to go home (or just got to leave early unpaid, still great) because he gets through the work so quickly.

Strangest of all, he actually likes his job a lot. I don't think I could do something like that (one day in a factory and I nearly went nuts from boredom and the neverending work), but damn if he isn't happy.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Mr. Slippery]

Various states have greater requirements.

As do other countries. The HufPost article refers to conditions ar "Some of the Amazon warehouses in the UK." I don't know what labor laws there are like, of course. But regardless of whether it's legal, Amazon's crappy working conditions are yet another reason while I'll keep shopping elsewhere.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[headpushslap]

Take an ethics class sometime. Employers have a duty to provide an experience which contributes to human flourishing, taking advantage of employees because you can (due to market conditions) is unethical. Your utilitarian ethics are a very base level.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[jcr]

Take an ethics class sometime.

Why don't you tell me what's ethical about using the threat of violence to forcibly prevent someone from being employed?

Employers have a duty to provide an experience which contributes to human flourishing, taking advantage of employees because you can (due to market conditions) is unethical.

Nope. Their duty is to pay whatever they've agreed to pay, and fulfill whatever other terms they may have agreed to. It's called a "contract". There's nothing at all unethical about making an offer that someone else can take or leave.

Your utilitarian ethics are a very base level.

Go fuck yourself.

-jcr

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Threats of Physical Violence?

Clearly we disagree on some fundamental issues. Well, you disagree with me, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and some other clowns with nothing to say.

Just because something is legal (i.e: a contract) does not make it ethical. Seriously, I can probably get productivity out of you a lot cheaper, whatever it is you do, how I do is inconsequential, right? So I roll your wages back to 1990 levels and tell you that it's still legal because I can pay what the market will bear, I take away all of your health benefits and stop contributing to your pension, because I don't have any legal obligation to do so. You can quit if you like, but you will not get a reference because I don't legally have to provide one. It's all ethical, right? Because it's all legal.

Seriously, utilitarian and consequentialist ethics are pretty much grade 6. Look a little deeper, these people could be your neighbors, your family, or you. We all have a duty to push forward the human condition, or else we're just chasing money or fame or power for it's own sake.

Re:eh, I'm not crying too hard

[jcr]

Threats of Physical Violence?

That's what government is, sunshine. Admit it to yourself.

-jcr

Robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't industrial robots able to do most of the packaging tasks Amazon needs done? Given the enormous size of Amazon in terms of books sent, even just one plant catering to the US automated with robots could well make a significant impact on costs/delivery times/etc. Restricting automation to just ordinary books could be a great way to demonstrate methods to calculate the optimal packaging/arrangement per order.

Re:Robots

[BrightSpark]

Yeah, but little girls from Whoville keep getting stuck in them when the Grinch breaks into their secure boxing section - I've seen it on TV so it must be true!

Re:Robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Robots cost too much when compared to low-paid human labor. Also, robotics in such plants are still mostly experimental. I worked at several plants similar as described in the article. They were trying to introduce robots in one of them.

One robot was designated as "beer master". Its sole purpose was to pick beer crates. It usually jammed up at least twice a day. Most of the time it stood idle as the guy on forklift duty couldn't keep up with it.

The second robot (if you want to call it that) was extremely large. It was designed to handle (store, pick, sort and package) anything box-shaped. In the 6 months I was working there I never saw that machine running, aside from a few test runs.

Those very computers that decide the most optimal packing tend to screw up royally when one of the white collars upstairs feeds it the wrong dimensions. I remember my load being considerably oversized on more that one occasion due to someone missing a digit. Nor can they decide if the "this side up" marker can be safely ignored in order to make the load more compact and/or stable.

Robotics (for now) can only operate efficiently when their task contains few variables. Unless designers stop thinking up weird-sized packages and consumers stop mixing products around, the human factor will most likely remain.

Re:Robots

[MightyYar]

Robots might make sense to handle their routine volume, but the holiday rush is probably cheaper to handle with humans which don't require the large capital expense.

Re:Robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't industrial robots able to do most of the packaging tasks Amazon needs done? Given the enormous size of Amazon in terms of books sent, even just one plant catering to the US automated with robots could well make a significant impact on costs/delivery times/etc. Restricting automation to just ordinary books could be a great way to demonstrate methods to calculate the optimal packaging/arrangement per order.

Wow! I'm sure all these billion dollar companies are so grateful that they have all these Slashdoters to show them the inefficiency of their business in a 30 second post!

There are plenty of reasons robotics wouldn't be more cost effective than just hiring cheap labor... Installation price, R&D price, maintenance price, electricity, capital depreciation costs, insurance, etc.

Re:Robots

[fm6]

Robots might make sense to handle their routine volume,

I think not. From what I know of industrial robots, they can do repetitive tasks, but have no adaptability. Good on assembly lines, but useless when even the most basic decision-making is required.

I have to wonder what Amazon was thinking, building such a labor-intensive operation four hours from the nearest major labor pool.

Re:Robots

[benjamindees]

Robots cost too much when compared to low-paid human labor.

You know, humans can build robots.

tend to screw up royally when one of the white collars upstairs feeds it the wrong dimensions.

And robots can do white-collar jobs.

Oh, who am I kidding. Americans won't get robots until they are imposed on us by foreign owners. Everyone has convinced themselves that the ideal career involves getting an overvalued degree at some worthless state college, then sitting in a cubicle all day attending meetings and generally doing nothing in an attempt not to upset the delicate corporate balance between the various overpaid idiots in charge of screwing up various aspects of the production process, all the while hoping that we find an excuse to bomb or overthrow the developing country du jour before the company is put out of business by lower-paid overseas competitors.

Re:Robots

[Nimey]

Taxes?

Re:Robots

[Kjella]

I think not. From what I know of industrial robots, they can do repetitive tasks, but have no adaptability. Good on assembly lines, but useless when even the most basic decision-making is required.

I don't think that's true anymore, if you can make a reasonable parametrization of the task then robots do it. Like they can handle any x*y*z package within reasonable bounds but not oddly shaped stuff and things like that. We might be far away from the general household robot, but they do have a lot more sensors and rely more on those than the old "blind" robots who'd to the same operation no matter what was happening.

Re:Robots

[Sulphur]

At the end of a conveyor belt, a worker took castings, turned, and removed the sprue with a punch press.

A salesman came in and said that there were neat advantages with a robot : It would never come in late, organize the shop, chase your wife, or sue. They bought one.

What was not mentioned was that the robot was perfectly willing to have its hand in the way of the press.

Now the worker takes castings and walks around the robot.

Re:Robots

[MightyYar]

but useless when even the most basic decision-making is required.

So don't let them make any decisions. Stick a bar code on everything as it comes in and weigh it. Let the robots do the multi-mile treks around the factory, and all they have to be smart enough to do is scan a bar code and double-check the weight.

Robots are used at Newegg, for instance. It's just that sizing the costly capital equipment for the peaks probably would increase the payback period by quite a bit! Better to use seasonal workers.

I have to wonder what Amazon was thinking, building such a labor-intensive operation four hours from the nearest major labor pool.

It looks like they took over a former Golden Books warehouse. I have no insight, but a glance at the map shows that it is smack in the middle of a bunch of area population centers - kind of the center of mass of Wichita, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Springfield.

Re:Robots

[Smauler]

If robots worked as well as humans, we would not be using humans. Robots fuck up all the time. They are not nearly good enough to perform anything but strict sequential instructions. You need more than that in warehouses etc, and the thing that is killing warehouse jobs in the west is not new world efficiency, it's new world low wages. Manufacturing is a lot simpler than distribution, but it is still not simple robotically, nor cheap. Put simply : Robots do not increase efficiency in 99% of the applications they supposedly could because they are stupid.

ps. I do often work in a tyre warehouse

Re:Robots

[fm6]

OK, I stand corrected on the robots. Though "robot" is probably the wrong word.

I have no insight, but a glance at the map shows that it is smack in the middle of a bunch of area population centers - kind of the center of mass of Wichita, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Springfield.

Did you miss the part about workers not being able to handle the 2-hour commute from Tulsa? According to Google Maps, Wichita and Springfield are 3 hours, and OC is 4. They may be in a part of the country with a lot of population centers, but they're not close to a single one of them.

Re:Robots

[binarylarry]

That's funny, I always wondered what Hitler did before he got into politics.

Re:Robots

[mlts]

Even if a robot worked 100%, it doesn't mean all humans are useless. Moving parts wear out, metal expands and contracts out of calibration, heavily loaded parts get fatigued, screws work loose, lubricants degrade. So, no matter how good the robots are, they need to be put offline to be recalibrated, replacement parts installed, bearings repacked and regreased.

Of course, minor adjustments may require major software modifications. I'll use the common tape robot as an example. Say one is made to take AIT cartridges. To make it work with DLT media would take a major recalibration, if it would even be possible.

This isn't to say robots are important, but in no way they can completely replace humans, as someone has to service them when (not if) they fail.

Re:Robots

[fm6]

Back in the 30s, lots of guys had toothbrush mustaches. My grandfather had one. Der Fuhrer made them unfashionable, along with racism.

My family used to have this big photo of him hanging in the front entry. Once somebody asked me why we had a picture of Hitler. Which was sort of funny, because the photo was his official portrait as the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.

Re:Robots

[sean_ex_machina]

I have to wonder what Amazon was thinking, building such a labor-intensive operation four hours from the nearest major labor pool.

Distribution centers are often located way out in the middle of nowhere because that's where the cheapest land is. They don't need to be near a major population center unless they are looking to staff the place with skilled labor, which they aren't. After all, the Coffeyville area certainly does seem to have enough of a population base to support Amazon's operations most of the year.

Re:Robots

[dangitman]

Der Fuhrer made them unfashionable, along with racism. My family used to have this big photo of him hanging in the front entry. Once somebody asked me why we had a picture of Hitler. Which was sort of funny, because the photo was his official portrait as the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.

I don't see why this question is funny - after all, it would be unusual to hang a large picture of Hitler near the entry of a Jewish family's home. I also don't remember Hitler being the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.

Re:Robots

[rtb61]

I would think it is a little bit more than that. Building a major distribution centre away from a city gives you better traffic access and egress. You can place it where it is central to several major towns and cities. Land cost will be significantly reduced. The most subtle one is of course leverage, when you a by far the major employer in a small town it gives you a lot of leverage, no taxes, priority on all services, local government priority including police and fire and the community will myopically defend you. Even if there isn't a town you can work to create a totally dependent one. Amazon wouldn't really like the RV crowd as they can simply pack up and leave rather than being tied to a property investment.

The permanently mobile by choice population is also interesting. I wonder how they handle the digital communications and whether camp grounds are starting to provide broadband connections. I wonder if caravan towing services will become more popular, allowing your the simple use of a more efficient vehicle, rather than having it when not necessary, especially when your caravan spends months at one location.

Re:Robots

[MightyYar]

LOL, out in farm country a two-hour drive is "close"! :)

No I just meant that they picked a regional distribution center that seems to be roughly in the middle of where they are likely to ship. They are probably far more concerned about where the trucks have to go than where the people have to come from. I suspect their shipping fees far outstrip their wages, considering that the article said that a worker is expected to pack 150 X-Boxes an hour! Only 1 of those X-Boxes probably costs more to ship than the worker packing them made in an hour.

Also, if they located the center in a city, you'd have to fight traffic both out and in. UPS probably loves them - no traffic at all... much easier logistics that way.

But again, I'm just guessing. Could have been a tax break or a political favor or any number of other things.

Re:Robots

[Glonoinha]

I also don't remember Hitler being the head of a Jewish fraternal organization.

He was Camp Director for a few years, as I recall.

Re:Robots

[fm6]

Being a grammar nazi doesn't make you an expert on Hitler!

Re:Robots

[misexistentialist]

in no way they can completely replace humans, as someone has to service them when (not if) they fail.

There is a large external infrastructure devoted to human maintenance of humans; robots can be serviced by robots much more efficiently. You mention software modifications--humans need instruction for years to even learn how to use a toilet.

Re:Robots

[Anonymous Coward]

The following system looks impressive, but it doesn't help the workers do the actual packaging. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsMdN7HMuA

Re:Robots

[Anonymous Coward]

Robots can do many many things properly, but they need clear inputs, good tools and good programming. If teh boxes are different sizes, different colors, have different (important) stickers and have different levels of delicacy/weight it will require a very sophisticated tool+vision system, and some solid programming.

Best thing in a case like this is probably to have the automation system support the workers instead, by etc. reading all information and displaying it on a screen easy to read for the worker, keeping the loading area at the right hight (lowering the floor of the loading area as the stack gets higher), and making sure that the worker gets a steady stream of goods, not too many and not too few, possibly also turing the the right way up.

Re:Robots

[Neuroelectronic]

Yes... but you don't have to pay to train your humans how to do this stuff, only your robots.

Re:Robots

[u38cg]

You can pretty much guarantee that if it made financial sense, Amazon would be doing it. I reckon you'll find that the seasonal nature of the work combined with the specificity of the tasks involved mean that robots arren't an attractive solution. Speaking as someone who used robotic packers for a while, you need very high volume work that is not error-prone in order to make them cost effective running 24/7. Tooling up to run flat out for a couple of weeks a year cannot possibly make sense.

Re:Robots

[benjamindees]

So, you're saying that subsidized education is preventing technological progress?

Re:Robots

[Stregano]

If a couple repair bots are built, you will be good. If all your repair bots break, well that is a problem in your code. Only use a second repair bot when the 1st one breaks. fix the first one, and then have the first one, which is now fully repaired, swap roles and become the second repair bot. Have a third repair bot as an absolute backup that will only repair if the first and second repair bots are broken, and then become the primary repair bot, while the repair bot that was last serviced will then become the new third repair bot.

As for robots, I know that Oriental Trading Company uses one, it cost them about 1million. I got a buddy who works there and he says that the machine rarely ever messes up. Seriously, it cost less than 2 million for it.

If you spend 10million on robots one year and they work for 5 years, than you are really only paying 2,000,000 a year.

Now if an employee makes 11 an hour and only works 40 hours a week, a single employee would cost the company 23760. Now if there are 60 employees, it would cost the company 1,425,600 a year.

Now we are talking about 12 hour days, 6 days a week. 60 employees would cost the company (not counting overtime pay) 2,566,080. Add in overtime, and you can see that this number is just rising and rising. If Amazon provides any type of benefits like insurance or anything, Amazon will put some money forward for that too.

It will cost more for humans than robots. If you set the system up properly, a fully automated factory would work just fine.

Re:Robots

[terryducks]

Those very computers that decide the most optimal packing tend to screw up royally when one of the white collars upstairs feeds it the wrong dimensions.

That's one of bigger problems GIGO. When jobs are being produced and the code needs to determine how to take the packages and fill a known weight and dimension limit - the thing that always causes problems is the humans doing the data input.

the conversations are always humorous.... "Dude - you have to fix the piece dimensions - you can't fit a 16oz piece through the machine - Did you mean 1.6 oz ?"

Wut ?

What is the point of this article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Local hippie couple heads to the heartland and learns about hard work.

Seriously, wtf is the point of this article?

Re:What is the point of this article?

[OrangeTide]

I used to work for Amazon. Their fulfillment centers are pretty impressive. Before I started working there I would have never realized that so much though, planning and technology went into packing the right stuff into the right boxes. If you would have RTFA you should have gotten to the point where that little bit was discussed.

The other interesting thing is to use RVers to handle some of the seasonal demand. In some ways it is a little offensive though. RVers typically aren't looking for a steady paying job, but end up doing a little work at Amazon "for the experience" (ie they thought it might be fun). While there are lots of people out there that have no job, and have real bills to pay, and mouths to feed. But if they are offering $10/hr and people without jobs don't want to commute 4 hours a day for it, I guess that's just the free market being fair about it.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

What else do you want from a Huff Post article? That's where you go for this sort of thing. Complaining about the Huff Post being whiny is like pointing out factual errors in a Michael Moore movie or pointing out that rushlimbaugh.com seems to have a bias.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, many RVers do depend on these seasonal gigs to pay their very real bills and keep food on the table. People who take on these sorts of gigs just for experience of it are an exception to the norm in the workamping community.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

How about reading it?

There's hard work, then there's doing this. But when you're talking about 10 hour days, with ludicrous packing quotas, limited breaks, low pay, and grueling intensive labor, we're talking about abuse. Sometimes, some jobs take 20 hour work days, but usually the pay is much better. While on one hand, this is what they're willing to work for, on the other hand, they don't have many options and that's pretty fucked up that they're abusing this situation like this.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

How about reading it?

I did. I often read the Huff Post... it's good to keep up to date on perspectives of other people, even when it's not always in agreement with your own. People are hardly ever evil or crazy - they just don't see the world in the same way.

But when you're talking about 10 hour days, with ludicrous packing quotas, limited breaks, low pay, and grueling intensive labor, we're talking about abuse.

Oh, please. I'm afraid I'll disappoint you now and just fall back on a Libertarian yarn... if it is such a bad job, then why were people driving to it 4 hours a day? Why are people camping out in their RVs for a month to take this horrible, temporary job? They aren't abusing some captive source of local poor workers - people are actually coming in from pretty far away. These people are making several times an hour what the people who assembled your computer make in a whole day. Are there better jobs? Sure. But you can do a lot worse, and I won't agree that this one crosses some line of acceptable work conditions - especially given the temporary nature of the work.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[Smauler]

I work 9 1/2 hour days, with 1/2hr lunch, manual labour and driving, every day for 48 weeks a year. I get paid very little over minimum wage (must be about 10$ an hour, I've not checked the exchange rate recently). I used to code for a living, but I got bored of that. I enjoy my job now.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[IhateMonkeys]

All I got out of it was that two yuppie hippie-wannabes figure it would be cool to work for Amazon for a month. What they realized was that RV campsites are dirty and Amazon doesn't pay squat for temp help. The only two words that can truly describe these two "experience junkies" (WTF that means) is douche and bags. What a bunch of whiney crying brats. "I can't twitter that I saw a Bill Clinton corkscrew" Oh the humanity!!! If I saw you twittering at work either you or the phone is going out the window. Most likely both. If these two sorry excuses want an experience and a job, come work with me. How does the desert of Iraq sound? How about no twitter/cellphones? Or heavily filtered internet? You might actually like the living units as they are pretty similar to what you are living in now. Oh did I mention that the job is 7 days a week 12 hours a day? Right now Im on my 93rd straight day of work. But I have a vacation coming up in another 30 days so Im good. You two up for it? Didnt think so. Go back to your pathetic lives.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Listen you heartless Paulite, they are abusing captive sources of labour. Yes, my computer was probably put together with, or uses components that were assembled with worse working conditions than this but that doesn't make this any better.

The job isn't particularly glamorous, the job isn't very well paying. My guess is, given the economic conditions, THEY CAN'T FIND BETTER JOBS. And after the new year, they're going to be out on their asses.

10 hour days with 2 bathroom breaks? Insane, unattainable goals? 11/hour? Have you even ever made 11 an hour in your life? Do you know how hard it is to live off of 11 an hour?

Fuck that shit.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[winwar]

"There's hard work, then there's doing this. But when you're talking about 10 hour days, with ludicrous packing quotas, limited breaks, low pay, and grueling intensive labor, we're talking about abuse."

I've read the article. And I have worked in busy distribution warehouses in peak seasons.

This is: long days, high quotas, limited breaks, intensive labor, good pay for the work and area.

This is not: ludicrous quotas, low pay, grueling labor, abuse.

I've worked harder, longer and for less pay in worse conditions and didn't consider it abuse. This is an example of people expecting an easy job and then finding out that they were going to have to work their ass off. And they weren't happy about it. If you think this job was abuse, try construction, especially laborer and roofing positions.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[ravenshrike]

140 X-Box 360s in an hour is a bit over 2 a minute. I'm assuming the packing people are in one place. That would not be very hard. Just do 5-10 at a time or so.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

Listen you heartless Paulite

Heartless? No. I fancy myself pragmatic, though.

they are abusing captive sources of labour

Nonsense. This isn't China, where people are forbidden from moving to more prosperous areas. They plopped down in a practically uninhabited hinterland. If cheap labor was their goal, then a city would have been much more appealing to them. You can still find minimum wage workers - and plenty of them. Minimum wage in the US ranges from a low of $5 to as high as $8, depending on state - so they aren't exactly bottom-dragging.

My guess is, given the economic conditions, THEY CAN'T FIND BETTER JOBS.

And this is where we have different world views. I see this statement and think, "Wow, Amazon is providing the best jobs in the whole area." You look at it and say, "How dare Amazon exploit these desperate people?" Realistically, if you come down on Amazon too hard, they will just move elsewhere or automate the jobs away.

10 hour days with 2 bathroom breaks?

You read that wrong. It is a 15-minute break, a 20-minute break, and no stated limit on bathroom breaks - but you do have to notify your supervisor so they know what happened to you. The article also states that there were longer breaks in the past, but the workers asked for shorter breaks to make the shift shorter.

Have you even ever made 11 an hour in your life?

Yes... I made $3.35/hour ($5.75 in today's dollars) in high-school and considered myself rich when I was raised to $5.50/hour ($8.59 in today's dollars). That was living at home, however - I wouldn't want to live on it. While in college I made $9.50 in two jobs, and then later got a pretty cush co-op job that paid $13. I made enough in that one to live on for the whole year even though I only worked 6 months. Of course, I didn't have to worry about health care, I was living with 2 other guys, and I didn't have any kids.

Try to remember that $10 is the base rate. They get $15/hour after 8 hours, and probably $20/hour on Sunday. It sounds like they are getting 60 hour weeks, with 5 of those on a Sunday - which by my calculation is about $3000 for the month of seasonal work... you could do far worse.

Fuck that shit.

Yeah, that's why I went to college and got a useful degree. Living in the middle of farm country with no education isn't exactly a place to get picky about wages.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[Glonoinha]

The job isn't very well paying?
Do the math. Even if the part about not paying 1.5x for overtime is true, these people are making the equiv of $40k per year doing life-size Tetris (ie, moving boxes around and packaging them.) And they aren't paying rent - the pre-tax savings to them is another $500 per month (I will be generous and undervalue their monthly rent in a camper, including the associated bills like water and electricity, rent for the lot, etc, at $325 / month).

Take the $11 x 12 hours per day x 6 days per week x 4.33 weeks per month = $3,430
Plus the $500 (pre-tax) free place to live
And if the labor laws actually force them to pay 1.5x for OT (it happens, just takes a while) add another $5.5 * 4 hours * 6 days * 4.33 weeks / month = $570
And we're looking at a monthly gross of $4,500, or a gross annual salary equivalent of $54,000.

For entry level grunt work. DAMN!

I'm not saying it's not physically demanding, but still - $54k a year for packing boxes as an 18 year old right out of high school. Your personal responsibility is no larger than that individual transaction, with the negative ramifications being 'fix that order' if you screw up. It took me a four year degree in software engineering and eight years on the job, responsible for the entire company surviving Y2K before I was grossing $54k a year. At 18 years old I wish some heartless company would have offered to abuse me like that.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

It's the "Paulite" again.

I looked up Kansas minimum wage laws. It's $2.65 an hour, going up to $7.25 next year. Amazon is paying 4x minimum wage. Kansas also only starts overtime at 46 hours, so my calculations are off by $120 or so.

Also, I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. Do you really think anyone who reads the Huffington Post would follow Ron Paul for anything other than amusement?

Re:What is the point of this article?

[xaxa]

$2.65? Woah...

Some other countries have a minimum wage of around $10-15, and a maximum amount of time you can work in any day or week. Amazon would probably need to employ 3 people in these countries for every 2 people in the USA facility, and it might increase their costs to do so.

It is, of course, for the citizens of each country to decide what they want for their people and businesses.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[KingAlanI]

Yeah, that's why I went to college and got a useful degree. Living in the middle of farm country with no education isn't exactly a place to get picky about wages.

Hit nail on head. I recall that when I was working in the back room of my university's major dining hall, I said several times something to the extent of "One big reason I'm going to college is so I don't have to do crap like this forever".

I must say though, it's humbling (and otherwise instructive/valuable) to do that kind of work for any noticeable amount of time, even if you don't go full time with it. (I was there for 25 weeks, 10 hrs each, $7/hr [approximately])

Re:What is the point of this article?

[sean_ex_machina]

In a town where you can rent a 2 bedroom house for less than $500/month, living on $11/hour isn't all that difficult. Have you ever been more than 50 miles from a major city?

Re:What is the point of this article?

[N1AK]

My guess is, given the economic conditions, THEY CAN'T FIND BETTER JOBS..... Do you know how hard it is to live off of 11 an hour?

I imagine it's a lot easier than not having a job which given these economic conditions is what would happen if you made Amazon pay 30% more and limit hours to say 9-5. Think someone like Amazon couldn't manage this kind of operation out of say Mexico?

Without government subsidy or protectionism people won't be paid sufficient wages to live 1st world lifestyles if they are no more skilled than 3rd world labour, personally I'd rather the government supported self-improvement instead of subsidising people in box packing jobs.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Other than the useless libertarian Wharrrgarbl, what's the problem with Government protectionism for it's own citizens?

Re:What is the point of this article?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Except that place isn't free. Food, water, insurance, RV payments... It's probably not the $500 figure you've come to, but you're talking about working EVERY DAY, SIX SHIFTS A WEEK(with one overnight shift and no buffer day to recover) FOR 10 HOURS A DAY, 365 DAYS A YEAR to make $54k a year.

You can go Crab Fishing for a few weeks out of the year and make that much. Sure, 20 hour days, but, lots of time off between the crabbing seasons and some seasons will be better than others, but you're not being asked to slave every day of your life.

Given that they're kicked out on their ass after the first month, it's not exactly a sustainable lifestyle.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

Heh, my "must finish college so I don't have to do this anymore" jobs included making candy, retail, measuring the thickness of paint (and literally watching paint dry) at a corrosion lab, and measuring things under a microscope 70 hours/week. Also, writing VBA macros :)

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

Other than the useless libertarian Wharrrgarbl, what's the problem with Government protectionism for it's own citizens?

First, I'd like to point out that this isn't a FOX news show, so we can have shades of gray :)

Everyone except the most hard-core libertarian agrees that some protectionism is needed. The argument among most people is the degree needed. Some people think that $11/hour is a good minimum, others think it should be a little higher. Everyone would acknowledge - I hope - that jacking it up arbitrarily will result in a loss of jobs. Letting it fall too low will make it easier to negatively exploit desperate people.

Someone else here called me a "heartless Paulite" for thinking that this Amazon job wasn't the worst deal in the world, when in reality we probably only have some slight differences in opinion on the number of hours one should be able to work and the amount they should make at a minimum.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

Yeah that is really low. I think Kansas has a large farm economy... maybe that rate was kept low for migrant workers? Anyway, they are bringing back up - I suspect because they were missing out on federal money by not keeping the minimum wage up at federal standards.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[Mr. Slippery]

I looked up Kansas minimum wage laws. It's $2.65 an hour, going up to $7.25 next year. Amazon is paying 4x minimum wage.

Perhaps you're from outside the U.S. and so don't realize it, but such a low minimum wage in state law is superseded by the federal minimum, currently $7.25. (The federal minimum has been more that $2.65 an hour since 1979.) Amazon is most definitely not paying four times the minimum wage.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[Mr. Slippery]

people without jobs don't want to commute 4 hours a day for it

People who've been without jobs for a while can't afford the gas, insurance, and maintenance on a vehicle to allow them to commute four hours a day. I'd guess that for many, finding childcare for those extra hours is also difficult.

Looking just at the basic cost of commuting: Some back-of-the-envelope figures: at 50 mph, four hours is 200 miles; at 25 mpg, that's 8 gallons of gas; at $2.60 a gallon, that's $20.80 in gas to get to and from work each day. So on a ten hour shift at $10, more than 20% of your gross pay is going for gas. Take the $79.20 that's left after you pay for gas, divide by the fourteen hours of work+commute, and after accounting just for gas and the commute time, you're left with $5.66 an hour.

Take an minimum wage, $7.25/hour job with a one hour roundtrip commute, run the same calculation, and the effective pay is ($72.50-$5.20)/11 = $6.12 an hour. Commuting 4 hours a day for a $10 an hour job doesn't make sense unless you believe there are absolutely no other jobs available or going to become available reasonably soon.

Re:What is the point of this article?

[MightyYar]

Naw, I'm from the US - I've just never lived or worked in a state with a minimum wage below federal levels.

It looks like the Kansas rate would only apply to exempt employees, so yeah, Amazon is paying ~50% above minimum and not 400% above minimum. Hey, I was only off by 8x... not bad!

I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[saturndude]

Driving 45 minutes each direction (northern KY, near Cincinnati Airport). (And yes, I rode the motorcycle to work Dec. 24 -- just ask Chan, Ian or Jim. They all saw me). Safety tips, announcements, and stretching. And the day begins. I've been there (CVG1) for 18 months, and I'm still amazed at all the products we carry.

I'm making more money than I ever have before (I'm 43), the work is steady, benefits are nice (including the exercise I get working), and everyone has a good sense of professionalism. As for firing you for taking off sick (Huff. Post article), um, sorry, no. Not here. (See, someone does read the articles before posting!) Cheating on overtime? I'm going over my financial records right now, and the occasional mistake does get corrected. And I take off for the Men's room whenever I need to.

Fascinating article, though. Always wondered about our other operations. Sorry some of the campgrounds aren't so nice, hopefully that will improve.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[saturndude]

Oops, sorry. I drive 45 minutes each direction from a HOUSE. And 6 PM until 2:30 AM five nights a week (until 4:30 AM in the busy season) suits me quite well.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[BiggerIsBetter]

Do you have a day job too?

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[palegray.net]

While your point is well taken, holding a graduate level degree isn't any guarantor of a higher salary. I know several people who finished grad school and never broke $50K a year (they're in their 40s and 50s now). There are also jobs that pay six figures but don't require anything more than a high school diploma or equivalent.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[ElectricTurtle]

Not everybody wants the same things out of life, and I've never thought it in good taste to explicitly or implicitly insult anybody's honest work, regardless of what it is or who they are.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[EllF]

Not everybody wants the same things out of life, and I've never thought it in good taste to explicitly or implicitly insult anybody's honest work, regardless of what it is or who they are.

Seriously, this.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[geoskd]

You're 43 and your highest paying job ever is stuffing boxes for Amazon? Have you ever considered furthering your education?

That way he can be the best educated box stuffer at amazon. Those who believe the high paying jobs are coming back in any quantity have another thing coming... The truth is that the median income in the US is actually much lower than people seem to realize. $13.50/Hour is the median income. There are whole swaths of the United States where $11 / hours is actually a "desirable" job as opposed to the minimum wage jobs that are otherwise available. We have become a service industry country, and have given all of the "high paying" jobs to foreign nationals because otherwise our corporate masters would have to pay for real benefits and a meaningful pension plan. Corporations have abdicated their moral responsibilities for their employees. As long as our justification is the almighty dollar, this situation is only getting worse. I am not one to advocate socialism in any form, but capitalism only works when those who benefit from the system perform their social responsibility towards their employees and treat them right. The people who reap the profits have to take a backseat to the common good of all, otherwise the system collapses and no-one gets any profit. The only viable way to ensure that every employee exercises their responsibility is through regulation. We have already seen what happens when they are allowed to operate on their own recognizance. Every industry that has been allowed to function without regulatory oversight has found a way to bubble. This situation can logically only result in an ultimate burst which threatens the stability of our entire economy. It is a publicly sanctioned pyramid scheme, where a select few early adopters make money and everyone else gets screwed. When are we going to collectively put a stop to it. Do we have to see 90% of the population below the poverty line before we will wake up and see it for what it is?
-=Geoskd

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[saturndude]

I have a bachelor's degree and some other credentials (also learned HVAC at night school), but not a lot of experience in either field.

I don't "sell myself" well at interviews, but Amazon (and partners) have the web presence (and logistics) to sell stuff efficiently. I'm happy to be here.

If I get more confidence, and the right opening comes along, well....

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Comatose51]

If there were more people like you, the world would be a better place. Seriously.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Suki I]

Thank you for straightening them out. I have a well accomplished friend that may be joining the Kentucky crew soon, if they have openings.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I made more as a plastic extruder operator on shift work than my brother in law was making with a degree in software engineering and 5+ years experience in the field. If you factor in the years I was earning money while he was a full time student, it will be a long time before his education pays off economically compared to the two day forklift course my job required. Having now purchased some of my own equipment so I can work for myself, it is unlikely that he can ever match my hourly rate working for a company, however his stock options may make him wealthy.

That's not at all to say that I'm against education, I'm learning to program now, but to compare ROI, I will be better off to buy a truck than get a degree. Since I consider education an end in itself that's not necessarily always the deciding factor.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the middle of an argument criticizing capitalism you say:

I am not one to advocate socialism in any form

This illogical undercurrent of anti-socialism is a big reason why America is where it is.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so that's the view you get from your parents' ivory basement.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[seifried]

Amen. I "enjoy" renovating my house. Most people would sooner shoot themselves than do drywall and subfloors. But if you told me that would be my career I'd be pretty damn unhappy.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[timmarhy]

my god what a rant man, what is a paragraph?!

let me tell you a little story about regulation. once there was a company that was looking at giving it's employee's an extra perk, it was worth quiet a bit to the employee's in return for an extra hours work per day. And then in comes the guberment, stamping it's feet and stating in no uncertain terms that is wasn't allowed, and no you can't run your own business or work on your own terms, because it's regulated.

i can't say too much more because i was actually involved, but i can assure you that getting the government to regulate every facet of business is NOT a good answer.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[stimpleton]

Our local radio station ran a competition years ago: The crappiest job.

A girl(I presume teenager) rang in and she won. Her father made sacks. He sewed the bottom of them. I was about 14 at the time, and at first I laughed. As she mocked her father more I stopped laughing. I'll never forget it, and I Iearned a lot about humanity in 2 minutes that day.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[FooAtWFU]

There are whole swaths of the United States where $11 / hours is actually a "desirable" job as opposed to the minimum wage jobs that are otherwise available.

There are also places where a 1-bedroom apartment is $200-$400/mo instead of $2000. It's relative.

The people who reap the profits have to take a backseat to the common good of all, otherwise the system collapses and no-one gets any profit.

I don't know about that, but a number of CEOs need to take a back seat to their shareholders and not give themselves multimillion dollar bonuses they don't deserve.

Every industry that has been allowed to function without regulatory oversight has found a way to bubble.

Yeah, especially the flower industry. Those Dutch tulip bulbs were something else, eh? .... silly generalizations aside, though, seriously: "regulation regulation regulation" is a poor silver bullet, not always all that effective at bubble-reduction. In fact, if you do it wrong, it can contribute to the bubbles and make things worse. (No, Fannie Mae and the government's push for lots of subprime mortgages did not cause the bubble all by itself. Yes, they helped make things worse.)

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[DigitalReverend]

You don't happen to park in behind the Atrium do you?

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

That way he can be the best educated box stuffer at amazon. Those who believe the high paying jobs are coming back in any quantity have another thing coming... The truth is that the median income in the US is actually much lower than people seem to realize. $13.50/Hour is the median income.
-=Geoskd

Median HH Income is 45k, which breaks down to >20/hr, not 13.50.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen the job offers (or lack of) that college grads get? A recent career fair at a local university (accredited, one of the top small colleges, and had a good reputation) had the following jobs for its graduates:

Army. MOS, 11X regardless of ASVAB score. If you want anything other than being a grunt (praying that you bag an insurgent so you can claim their AK-47 so you have a reliable rifle), you have to wait a year+ for DEP.
Incoming calltaker at a bank.
Script monkey for a temp agency who serviced a PC company.
Commissioned sales for whatever crap, aluminum siding or whatnot. Can't find enough suckers, you go hungry.
Outgoing calls for a collection agency.

So, being an "elf" for Amazon looks good in comparison to what is available (and this is for people with a B. S.) Better to have a job than not.

The job market isn't going to be improving soon. The rate businesses are hemorrhaging jobs has yet to decrease, and this has to go to zero and turn negative if the US is to see any type of real recovery.

So, the Amazon temporary work may be something to snicker at, but for most of the country, they would be damn happy for *any* jobs at all.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[zn0k]

That assumes only one individual per household is earning income.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Rakishi]

What the hell is your point? The median income has GONE UP over the past 40 years, inflation adjusted. In other words thing are BETTER now than they were 40 years ago by your metric. And before you say anything, this holds true even if you include more workers.

As for bubbles, trying to stop them with regulation is like killing your wife because she might one day cheat on you. Long term, the economy comes off much worse than otherwise since you need insane regulations to stop them. After all, is it actual economic growth or a bubble? Better be careful and nip it in the bud just in case. Poverty for everyone might be equality but it sure as hell isn't a good thing.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[fm6]

If you can hack getting off work at that hour, good for you. I never could.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[phantomfive]

Corporations have abdicated their moral responsibilities for their employees.

In all honesty, if our best hope is to rely on corporations to live up to their 'moral responsibility,' then we are in trouble. The truth is, companies have no more moral responsibility to provide jobs than I have moral responsibility to buy 'red' aids-awareness merchandise. I agree we should all try to take care of each other, but we should do it in a way that works: primarily focus on trying to help people rather than trying to force our morality onto others.

Every industry that has been allowed to function without regulatory oversight has found a way to bubble.

This one is definitely a misdiagnosis, are you going to regulate everything, to the price of tulips? Anything that can be traded for a price can become a bubble if you don't regulate the prices, but price controls have been shown to be bad for a number of reasons, both in theory and practice. Bubbles are formed around products for which the value is hard to determine. If people don't know the true future sales potential of an internet company, or don't realize that an AAA rated security is really made up of NINJA loans, then there will be a massive bubble. Couple that with the federal reserve actions for the last decade and a half, and you have a ton of people desperate to find something to invest their money in, willing to believe that these risky markets are indeed good.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[AK Marc]

I don't know about that, but a number of CEOs need to take a back seat to their shareholders and not give themselves multimillion dollar bonuses they don't deserve.

CEOs aren't responsible to the shareholders. They are responsible to the board. And the requirement to be on the board? You have to be a CEO and invite the CEO you want to be on the board for to be on your board. So boards are full of CEOs and ex-CEOs for the same companies that have that CEO and ex-CEOs from that company on their boards. This means you are voting for raises for the person that gets to vote on your raise next week.

And you think there's something wrong with that? That's Capitalism at its best, you pinko commie.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

What did you learn? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

As long as our justification is the almighty dollar, this situation is only getting worse. I am not one to advocate socialism in any form, but capitalism only works when those who benefit from the system perform their social responsibility towards their employees and treat them right.

That's a completely subjective judgment and the whole point of a capitalist system is that worker/employer come to a mutual agreement. Fair is whatever both sides agree is fair.

The real problem is consumer (and worker) complacency.

Do we have to see 90% of the population below the poverty line before we will wake up and see it for what it is?

What?! The poverty line is (usually) a relative estimate. If you want to see "true" poverty, like in Africa, you'll be much harder pressed to find it.
You say you are not one to advocate socialism but your rhetoric is pretty similar to the standard arguments for socialism. The whole point of a capitalist exchange is both sides benefit, otherwise, said exchange would not take place. Gigantic profits are not a problem. How they are acquiring it, however, may be.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

Not all of us believe in strong, top-down "obey us, citizen!"-style governing, which socialism depends upon. Capitalism, with informed and active consumers, should (or at least, could) do anything socialists want as an emergent byproduct of consumer collective action, without the "might-makes-right" and "I'm morally superior to you" leftist chestbeating.

If large groups of individuals cannot collectively gather and mutually agree to provide each other with healthcare, protection, etc, then they do not, as a group, deserve it.

Maybe people are too stupid to be informed and active consumers--I'd agree--but then again, if they're stupid stupid to mutually and collectively leverage their own bargaining power, they're in no position to vote for the people that tax them and can stick them in jail...!

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the poster you replied to, but that girl was mocking the work that provided her sustenance and the man who did it. It is extremely bad form to mock those you depend upon as inferior. I've seen a poster here mock welders, for example. That poster almost certainly was dependent on some of those welders, at least for their transportation to their so-called superior work.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[evilviper]

The truth is that the median income in the US is actually much lower than people seem to realize.

That's because a great many people live in areas with extremely high cost of living, and can't fathom that other areas are very different...

We have become a service industry country, and have given all of the "high paying" jobs to foreign nationals because otherwise our corporate masters would have to pay for real benefits and a meaningful pension plan.

The US remains the #1 manufacturer in the world, and the #1 economy, by a big margin.

The skill-free jobs that got off-shored were generally not the high paying ones... that cheap pair of socks at WalMart isn't to blame for the rising disparity in rich and middle class. That would have happened even without globalization, as automation, and increasing worker efficiency, results in far fewer people being required than were a decade ago.

Every industry that has been allowed to function without regulatory oversight has found a way to bubble.

I must have missed the nannies/housekeepers bubble... Or perhaps the retail store bubble...? In fact, MOST industries aren't regulated, and I doubt you can come up with hundreds of "bubbles".

I don't disagree that much more regulation is needed in the US. Sound economics has been underminded since Regan, and seems to still continue to spiral downhill. But that doesn't make your facts any less inaccurate...

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

OK, that's what I thought, I was just sleepy and unsure if I wasn't misinterpreting it.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[bjourne]

The illogical point is that the GP would rather beg the corporations ("accept your moral responsibility") than the socialist thing which is to form unions and force better working conditions. But as long as that idea is to socialist, the US will be deservingly stuck with the shittiest jobs in the Western World.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all of us believe in strong, top-down "obey us, citizen!"-style governing, which socialism depends upon. Capitalism, with informed and active consumers, should (or at least, could) do anything socialists want as an emergent byproduct of consumer collective action, without the "might-makes-right" and "I'm morally superior to you" leftist chestbeating.

It's called libertarian socialism. You might want to look it up, but if you're too lazy: people form small communities. Small communities elect delegates to a larger community assembly. Larger community assemblies elect delegates to a still larger assembly, all the way up to national scale. Recall is available at any level. What involves only a single community is decided on that level: no greater, no lesser.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[sznupi]

The US remains the #1 manufacturer in the world, and the #1 economy, by a big margin.

Hate (well, not really...) to burst your bubble, but the EU is #1.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

Voluntary unions are quite capitalist. I have no problem with them, and they are in essence a worker's cartel. We definitely ought to have good, non-corrupt union action.

In the end corporations can only give what people accept, otherwise they crumble. A government will jail you for noncompliance.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough the EU is not a country or a single economy yet.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[sznupi]

Not a single economy? From where did you get that fairytale?

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Québec we have price control and quota on milk.
Dairy farm properties never have been this expensive
Therefore central planing don't automatically reduce wealth.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[xaxa]

Voluntary unions are quite capitalist.

What? Worker's unions are extremely socialist. Plenty of European socialist political parties have their roots in worker's unions.

Socialism is where the workers control the means of production, i.e. their labour. That's exactly what trade unions are for.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[MindlessAutomata]

Then maybe the "free market" and socialism are not as at odds as you think they are. When libertarians and the like speak of free market it's not necessarily money changing hands that they want to see, it's simply relationships made in mutual agreement.

It is not so much socialism I hate as it is state socialism, that is, top-down, enforced socialism upon people. You're perfectly free to tear down corporations simply by refusing to engage with them. Corporations do what is most profitable, but profits don't come out of thin air--they come out of people.

You can, after all, have socialist ends via free market means. How is a union anti-capitalist? Or, how is a co-op anti-capitalist? They are forces working within the free market. It is a perversion of the free market, a regulation, to control and stop voluntary unions--and the government does that, too, as the government has claimed the power to be able to end strikes.

That isn't to say that I think most unions are crooked. I think a lot of them are, and a lot of them reward seniority over everything else, especially the amount of work you do, need, etc. But they do not have to be crooked, and just like the consumers must reform market forces by responsible purchasing and actually asserting their own purchasing power as active, and not passive, consumers, unions must be reformed not by a government but by union members themselves.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[evilviper]

Hate (well, not really...) to burst your bubble, but the EU is #1.

Well, if we're doing bullshit numbers like entire continents, then I suspect NAFTA would beat-out the EU.

And I should point out that the EU is just barely larger than the US economically, despite a population 170% as large.

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[sznupi]

EU is a continent? Since when? It's simply a single market; in those categories just as well as a single country.

But hey, make yourself feel better if you really need it; for example by pointing out that it doesn't really matter due to population (while ignoring, say, that large part of it was just recently admitted into EU, and their post-soviet countries are still quite a bit wrecked by half a century of occupation)

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, so we can form our own communities where slavery is legal? Sounds great!

Re:I'm in a good place with Amazon.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in Seattle at Amazon's main offices, and have what's considered to be one of the "good" jobs (according to what several of the people in this thread think vs. working in the FC) and many of the people I work with started out stuffing boxes in the warehouses. You can absolutely work your way up at Amazon. Just keep your head up and look for those openings.

Thankful for a couple of things

[93 Escort Wagon]

- I'm thankful Amazon has this system down pretty much pat. There were a few toys my nieces and nephews REALLY REALLY wanted, and I was coming up dry on in the brick-and-mortar stores around here. Amazon listed them as "in stock", and I was able to order them on the 22nd with standard shipping - they shipped within a few hours and arrived on the 24th.

- Having read the article... I'm thankful Amazon had the policy of "employees can't carry anything in that is an item we sell". The idiot featured in this story talked about wanting to "tweet" about stupid crap (my description, not his) that he saw. Any policy - even a draconian one - that prevents some dullard from tweeting is okay in my book!

Re:Thankful for a couple of things

[AndrewNeo]

I was rather amazed too, and I'd certainly love to thank all of these people that work on the floor at Amazon for making it possible, I ordered a Wii and a few games for my family on the 23rd, and had overnight shipping for the 24th. And thanks to Amazon and UPS the package got there on time, and we got it wrapped up for Christmas. All I had to do was click a button, it's rather amazing.

Re:Thankful for a couple of things

[Aladrin]

Heh. Now I feel kinda bad for ordering mundane things for myself right before XMas and using 2-day shipping. (Prime is a God-send.)

Re:Thankful for a couple of things

[Neuroelectronic]

A little bird told me most orders go out way before Christmas and the last minute shoppers are the exception. All you're really doing is making sure that the temp workers don't go home early before the end of the holiday season.

Re:The point is ?...

[MichaelSmith]

I think its fascinating. Its a mix of the itinerant fruit pickers here in southern Australia and the RV borne populations popular in cyberpunk books by Bruce Stirling and Neal Stephenson.

Good job amazon

[dUN82]

Well done amazon, who went for the extra mile so customer like me don't have too. I think what amazon has done is fascinating and benefit the customer, who can get their on time w/o the extra delivery charge; the RV campers, who can get some extra buck themselves; and of course amazon itself. It is a very create idea, yet challenging form a business' perspective, I am glad to hear the general result has been positive. I think a lot more companies that are facing a fluctuated demand dilemma could be enlightened by such a idea. Well done amazon.

Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

I am not one to advocate socialism in any form, but capitalism only works when those who benefit from the system perform their social responsibility towards their employees and treat them right.

That IS socialism. --And anybody against it deserves to be treated like a slave because slavery is *exactly* what they're asking for. The primary argument against socialism always boils down to this: "Mine! I don't want to share!"

Great. When all the little capitalists are starving because somebody greedier has won Monopoly and turned the world into slave-land, I'll remind them when they come asking for a bread crust. "Look around you! This is YOUR fault. Are you beginning to learn yet why self-service doesn't work? --Or do you want to be stupid livestock for another dozen life times? We WILL repeat this until you learn."

I'm all for idiot FOX viewers being punished for being idiot FOX viewers, but I am not content when others have to put up with the fallout from the knuckle-dragging propaganda-swallowing moronics of the pack man.

Humn. Pac Man. I just got that. That only took twenty years. --The pie-shaped dude is the archetypal pack animal, locked into a state of stupid because his genetics make him easy to subjugate into a ridiculous life-long race after crumbs through a rat maze. The Ghosts. . ? Ha! That actually makes sense too, but it's an idea too alarming for most people to deal with so I'll pardon myself from trying to explain.

What a depressing metaphor. Sigh.

Happy New Year.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[timmarhy]

capitalism results in an improved standard of living, this has been repeated all over the world over the last 50 years. sure it's not a perfect system but it's the best we have for now.

And the argumenets against socialsm aren't about not sharing, they are about others not pulling thier own weight in society. after all why should i work hard only to have the benefits of that hardwork given to someone who works less?

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[FooAtWFU]

Enslaving your fellow man is not the point of capitalism. The point of capitalism is merely to reward people investing in capital (like factories, or post-secondary education, or server farms, or hog farms, or orchards, or houses, or wheelbarrows, or telecommunications networks) by allowing them to profit from the use of that capital. When you allow this, then people invest in that capital, and you get a lot of stuff done - more so than you would from mere labor, the other component of getting things done. But anything else in excess of this isn't really about capitalism anymore: it's just selfish materialism taken to extremes. That is destructive, and abusive, and wrong.

And anyone who says that "greed is good" needs to be bonked upside the head. No, greed is not good. Greed is useful. That's different. It's useful for this: it drives people to go out and make worthwhile things happen, so that they can make money satisfy their greedy impulses. It drives people to invest in capital, in loans and and bonds and equities in companies which will ultimately pay them back and make their investment as worthwhile as possible. These companies bring new things to people, or bring old things to people better, and everybody wins. (Except when they don't, because the market is imperfect, and some people definitely win more than others, like our favorite people in the world: CEOs.... and they get away with it because of market inefficiencies, and we should probably consider how to actually effectively deal with the situation rather than just assert partisan rhetoric about the matter one way or another).

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. When all the little capitalists are starving because somebody greedier has won Monopoly and turned the world into slave-land, I'll remind them when they come asking for a bread crust.

I know I'm probably on the wrong site to defend capitalism but WOW, just WOW.

There is a healthy balance you know, pure socialism pulls everyone down to the lowest common denominator -- it's an economic tragedy of the commons (Why should I work when I can get all the same benefits from welfare?).

OTOH, pure capitalism basically leads to a caste system with a few rich families controlling everything.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialised capitalism (Various European nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc) has had far more positive benefit to the standard of living than the raw, unfettered capitalism of the USA, which has been stagnating for the last 50 years or more (unless you happen to be in the top 1% economically, then you're laughing). Sure, a lot of these nations don't have their middle class all living in McMansions mortgaged up until their eyeballs bleed, but the overall standard of living accross all levels of society is higher.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Rakishi]

Only an idiot who has no idea of what they're talking about would call what the US has "unfettered capitalism." It may be less socialized than Europe but it's still so far from pure capitalism you'd need to be certifiably retarded to not notice. I'm actually amazed you can even type given such a severe disability.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[happyhamster]

It's technological progress that results in improved living standards. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Soviet Union improved its living standards tremendously from 50s to 80s. So did many other non-capitalist countries.

By the way, capitalism died in 2008. The U.S. may let its rotting corpse slowly destroy its society entirely, or it may embrace progressive policies like Europe and even lead the way to a better society.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Rakishi]

And when all the little socialists are dying of disease because no one wanted to spend 12 years becoming a doctor only to get as much reward as the guy who became a janitor I'll be sure to come around and laugh at them.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Smauler]

Capitalism results in an improved standard of living for those with money. However, "standard of living" does not imply happiness, once you hit a certain threshold. The happiest societies are the ones with the least disparity in wealth. The trend is very very obvious - larger disparity, more unhappiness.

So what to do? Aim for money, or aim for happiness? Capitalism works, it creates wealth, but unbounded it does create unhappiness. Capitalism has always been bounded anyway, otherwise we'd have a shed load more monopolies than we do now. We need to bind it more to allow societies to thrive within it.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not one to advocate socialism in any form, but capitalism only works when those who benefit from the system perform their social responsibility towards their employees and treat them right.

That IS socialism.

You're displaying your ignorance. Socialism is when the state controls the distribution of resources. If an employer decides to treat their employees right and pay them well, that's still capitalism because it is a private individual and not the government making the decision. You don't even seem to understand the basic thing that define socialism vs capitalism, that being state vs private ownership.

I've got a friend who was quite convinced that he was a socialist. He owned his own equipment and worked as a contractor. He was quite surprised to realise that he naturally turned to capitalism as a method of achieving his goals. He had though that because he wasn't materially greedy that he was a socialist, yet he didn't want the government determining his prices or the equipment he could own or the industry he worked in.

The primary argument against socialism always boils down to this: "Mine! I don't want to share!"

Nonsense. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1 Conservatives give on average 30% more than socialists. It would seem they believe in personal generosity rather than forced redistribution. Conservatives want to be generous with their own money. Socialists also want to be generous with conservative's money.

In my opinion, the system you advocate will eliminate personal generosity, breaking down the relationships that make us a society. You want to replace generosity between people with subservience to and dependence on the state.

When communism collapsed in the USSR, who took over? The black marketeers (capitalism was illegal). China, presumably learning by example, legalised capitalism so the current rulers could partake of it rather than being displaced by the illegal capitalists. Learn the lesson: the government will be controlled by the successful capitalists, regardless of political structure. This is the case in monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, socialist and capitalist economies. Legally or illegally it will be so. The proper response is to maximise the power of the individual at the expense of governments and corporations and to decentralise government power making access to a national system of corruption much more difficult.

The result you want is only to be had by implementing the exact opposite of the political system you propose.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[timmarhy]

wealth makes people unhappy? i'd argue the problem is that so many people don't know how good they've got it, and THINK they know what unhappiness is. capitalism is the best way there is to get the wealth out there for more people, after all everyone has the opportunity to create their own wealth under a captialist society. it's only when you add things like copyright,patents and an out of control court system that lets the big guys bankrupt the little guys who can't afford high priced lawyers that you get problems. none of these things are anything to do with capitalism, they are infact peoples attempts to subvert it.

what we need is less interference in the free market, less protection of large companies and less incentive for people to try litigate the competition away.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

US does not follow pure capitalism. In a pure capitalist system the following would be allowed,

    1. Microsoft would have a complete monopoly over OS. Monopolies are the *desirable* end result of pure capitalism.
    2. There would be no minimum wage, worker's rights, maximum hours, etc.
    3. There would be no Medicare and Medicaid (fuck the poor, the old and the frail)
    4. You would be denied access to health care, even in emergency, unless you could prove you had insurance or could pay for the medical help.
    5. Public schools are relatively recent addition - private only.
    6. Lack of social mobility

I could go on and on and on. There are nations around the world where all of these are possible, yet they do not enjoy better standards of living.

The only system that allows for maximal wealth generation is a system that is *stable* and allows for social mobility. And a stable system requires rules (a.k.a. laws) that prevent capitalism *and* communism from taking over. Furthermore, these rules cannot be changing at a whim of whoever is running the country. And that is the system that Canada, US, western Europe enjoyed for the last half-century.

Mexico and UAE are examples of countries that follow more pure capitalist philosophy yet they fail at generating wealth. The reason is they do not have laws protecting the worker from being exploited. This results in lack of social mobility and *that* is the reason why they fail.

On the other hand, you have examples of countries like France. France laws are stable, but closer to the social side of the spectrum. Yet, France is doing quite well. Regulations have allows it to avoid the mess from subprime mortgage mess that happened in US and UK. But then in France you need 20% down and have a job to buy a house.

Now, if you want *pure* capitalism without interference from government, please move to Somalia. Somalis can verify they have enjoyed 100% pure capitalism for 2 decades now.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

I think most people that say "greed is good" is precisely because "greed is useful" in the way you say it is.

Nonetheless, it is a stupid term, because "greed" usually implies theft and unethical means of acquiring property, which is not really what the Ayn Randers advocate...

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

When people say the USA is unfettered capitalism, it is a demonstration that "capitalism" no longer means anything.

Capitalism, or rather, the free market, is hated by schemers because it does not provide a top-down mechanism for social control to inflict one's personal preferences and beliefs on the general population.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

The primary argument against socialism always boils down to this: "Mine! I don't want to share!"

And the primary argument for socialism is a gun to someone else's head telling them this: "Yes you will."

Next time you find someone else sleeping in your bed, you better let them stay there, because "it's mine!" is no longer a valid argument for you to ever use.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[benjamindees]

Each side of this debate (socialism vs. capitalism) really only gets half of the picture.

Higher living standards are achieved by only two methods: resource conservation and technological progress.

The way capitalism encourages higher living standards is via hoarding. Hoarding is not necessarily beneficial. Resource conservation and technological progress are beneficial. But hoarding is the means to the end. Allowing capitalists to hoard tends to encourage conservation and, in theory, technological progress. This raises the baseline living standards of the society, over time, in exchange for a large gap in living standards between the hoarders and the resourceless classes.

Socialism, on the other hand, can also result in higher living standards but via the opposite means. Instead of hoarding, socialism encourages redistribution. Besides the immediate direct raising of living standards of all citizens, by redistributing raw materials, human input (both labor and intellectual) is maximized. This encourages technological progress, at the cost of quicker resource depletion. Done correctly, redistribution can even encourage conservation.

What we have in America is called a mixed-economy. Not quite free-market capitalist, not quite commie-socialist. Capitalists are allowed to hoard, to an extent. Socialists are allowed to redistribute, to an extent. The entire thing is, of course, a complete clusterfuck. Instead of redistributing renewable raw materials, mixed-economy "socialists" redistribute finished goods and labor. Instead of hoarding limited raw materials, mixed-economy "capitalists" hoard worthless paper money. We end up with the worst of both worlds, resource depletion, forced labor, impoverished underclasses dependent upon the state, technological progress that can barely keep up with population growth, and stagnation in living standards.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, even in the "free market", the capitalist classes contain just as many "schemers" who inflict their personal preferences and beliefs on others, customers and employees alike.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

You think socialism is any less of slavery? Being "slave to your fellow man" while the leaders skim off their unequal share?

Only the weak, stupid, or those unwilling or unable to stand up for their rights would choose that.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

...which is only enabled by customers and employees that accept what is offered to them; individuals can avoid doing business with a corporation, but cannot escape the grasp of a government.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

The transition from feudalism to capitalism does wonders for the standards of living until wealth and power reconverges into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Once you reach the point where a small few control society, using their position of privilege to further cement their positions of privilege & passing their power down hereditary lines, society's in fundamentally the same place it started from. I may have a big-screen TV but I'm still slave to The Man - I may earn enough to survive another day (or plan for retirement) but I'll never make the kind of money that allows me to profit by virtue of already having it.

To turn your question around; why should those born into money be able to do less work simply because they were born owning the keys to the factories? If we're going to have those that are leeches upon society, shouldn't theirs be a position that people strive to escape rather than obtain, reviled rather than exalted & living a life of subsistence rather than affluence? It's far easier for me to stomach giving a dollar to those who have less than a dime to those who have more.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[sznupi]

Sure they can escape - move to a place where the grasp of government is practically null. I recommend Somalia; pure capitalism, plenty of opportunities for the gifted.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

That's just like the argument, "if you like socialism, you should move to Cuba."

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[MindlessAutomata]

....and, not to mention, you might as well excuse any act of government at all that way. "Don't like the DMCA? Well, move to Somalia, they don't have the DMCA... they don't have a government!"

"Don't like the Patriot Act? Somalia doesn't have the Patriot Act!"

Wipe the smug off your face.

"You want free healthcare? Cuba has free healthcare!"

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[sznupi]

Contrary to what Cuba itself or "anti-socialism" made you believe, Cuba is far from model country for socialist, it's more of an totalitarian oligarchy. In Somalia OTOH...you have quite pure capitalism.

Also, moving is always a valid option. If the society where you live is at odds with you, it's hardly your place anyway.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[sznupi]

And it's perfectly fine.

Look, whether you like to admit it or not, the governments are ultimately a reflection of society; nothing more. If you don't see a place for yourself in it in the future...hey, that's how US started. Carry on.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

You're displaying your ignorance. Socialism is when the state controls the distribution of resources. If an employer decides to treat their employees right and pay them well, that's still capitalism because it is a private individual and not the government making the decision. You don't even seem to understand the basic thing that define socialism vs capitalism, that being state vs private ownership.

Nah. That's a bullshit definition of Socialism. Why use it? --Let's redefine it to the one everybody understands in the cockles of their hearts anyway; "Don't be a greedy dick. Think of others. Recognize that a society works better when people help each other."

After all, THAT'S what everybody has been programmed to reject.

In any case, nobody is using the technically correct definition for "Capitalism" either. I mean, come on, you know as well as I do that when people say, "Capitalism" they don't mean, 'If an employer decides to treat their employees right and pay them well, that's still capitalism because it is a private individual and not the government making the decision.' Heck, your friend was surprised by your explanation for a reason. It's because the debate has been rigged with bum words. When people say, "Capitalism" They mean, "Absolute, unbridled, no-holds-barred competition." But when quizzed upon it, the FOX commentator can innocently fall back to the text book definition as you offer. So there are two levels at work. The bullshit definition level, and the real one where the war is actually being fought.

And that IS the war. Self-Service v.s. Service-to-Others.

The text-book definitions, (which I am quite of aware, thank-you very much), have been carefully selected and emotionally-defined and as such are useless in debate. There's no handy word on the political card table for, "Hey, I know! Let's play nice." All we've got is "Socialism", because the argument has been restricted to black & white terms by the Lords of Reality. One possible key is to redefine the logical and emotional content of the terminology so that it matches the actual problem. --And to ignore those who are caught up in explaining why Coke is better than Pepsi rather than in looking for a drinking fountain.

But if we want to look at the strict text book definitions. . . Capitalism and Socialism work out to the same net result; Governments infested with psychopaths game whatever system is in place to reach a state where they control everything and enslave everybody. Noble concepts like Capitalism and Socialism, I think, could both work well if we first purged governments of psychopathic and sociopathic individuals. I'd love to see mandatory testing and psyche evaluations of everybody in government, the results made public and then appropriate courses of action taken. We won't see that, but if we grow an awareness that such a problem exists and in fact defines the activity of our entire race, then we have new options open up to us; it allows us to make rational choices.

In my opinion, the system you advocate will eliminate personal generosity, breaking down the relationships that make us a society. You want to replace generosity between people with subservience to and dependence on the state.

Only if you play by the rulebook you've been handed. I reject it. It needs re-writing.

The psychopath is by default a self-centered greedy dick who wants his/her environment to make that mode of existence as easy as possible. Thus s/he will latch on to and hold up definitions which encourage greed-based thinking and further mire down the debate until we are all. . , well, until we are all exactly where we are right now. There's a reason why everybody hates lawyers.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

WOW, just WOW

Ugh. What's up with, "wow, just wow" guys? I'm sorry, but if you want to express personal surprise, maybe try to come up with a personal way of doing it. Regurgitating common expressions of surprise indicates zero thought, which calls into suspicion the force making your knee jerk in the first place. Are YOU reacting or are you just acting out some canned bit of crap you saw on TV?

But that's just a personal gripe.

The comments regarding balance you offer are spot-on and I actually agree with them. Look up, "Hyperbole" before getting all "Wowed" out next time.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

And when all the little socialists are dying of disease because no one wanted to spend 12 years becoming a doctor only to get as much reward as the guy who became a janitor I'll be sure to come around and laugh at them.

Uh huh. Yes, greed is the only reason anybody would ever want to become a doctor. That is sick.

--I know excellent healers of all different stripes who became healers because that is what they love. I also know greedy shits who became dentists because they wanted to make a lot of money. Interestingly, dentists have one of the higher suicide rates among the various professions.

Maybe you should become a dentist.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Rakishi]

Self-interest IS human nature. A species that does not have self interest does not survive, it's genes die off and are replaced by those that do have self-interest. Welcome to life. Deny it all you want but that's the truth.

Becoming a doctor is an unpleasant, grueling process that sucks 10 years of your life into essentially hell. The money makes up for all the time you couldn't spend enjoying life or being with your family. Most people wouldn't become doctors without the money because the sacrifice simply isn't worth it otherwise.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[xaxa]

Ah. You appear to be using the American definition of socialism: "See communism".

You may as well start with Wikipedia.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Rakishi]

Congratulations, you're seen the obvious. I replied to an absurd use of the word "capitalism" with an equally absurd use of the word "socialism."

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Hognoxious]

I'm sorry, but if you want to express personal surprise, maybe try to come up with a personal way of doing it.

Why not go the whole way and invent all your own words? Quthiaz, cnubto quthiaz!

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much. That is my reasoning for my plans to move to Canada before starting a new job. Why the hell should I pay for others health care? Let alone no one will see a benefit for at least 10 years. Shit, if I'm being forced into paying for others health problems, I'm at least going to move somewhere that has the details and problems already worked out. If you ask me, it will probably be 50 years of a nightmare before any benefit from the Pay for Others Health Bill is seen.
 
Good luck, and bon voyage! I'm out...

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

The primary argument against socialism always boils down to this: "Mine! I don't want to share!"

That's like saying the primary argument for socialism always boils down to "Gimme your stuff! You're not allowed to have more than I have!". Your version is no less dishonest a strawman, and using it makes you intellectually identical to those who use the other.

And anybody against it deserves to be treated like a slave

I'm all for idiot FOX viewers being punished for being idiot FOX viewers

These passages prove beyond all possible doubt that you are violently opposed to the very concept of freedom. You literally want disagreement with you to be forbidden by force. The only possible reason you could desire to do this (and you do desire it) is because you lack confidence in your own position and are sick with terror at the thought of having to defend it against critique. And no, you weren't exaggerating for effect; you got caught letting slip your desire for death of free speech.

Incidentally, that same fear of critical examination of your beliefs colors statements like this:

The Ghosts. . ? Ha! [wheezing old Pacman metaphor] actually makes sense too, but it's an idea too alarming for most people to deal with so I'll pardon myself from trying to explain.

You're taking that fear and projecting it onto everybody else, in a sad and futile attempt at avoiding having to deal with it yourself. Also, the reason you're "pardoning yourself from trying to explain" is that you know you're not competent to construct an explanation that will bear scrutiny. "The proles/masses/muggles/sheeple couldn't handle it" was a transparent excuse the last 5 million times it was used, and this one is no exception.

When all the little capitalists are starving because somebody greedier has won Monopoly and turned the world into slave-land, I'll remind them when they come asking for a bread crust. "Look around you! This is YOUR fault. Are you beginning to learn yet why self-service doesn't work? --Or do you want to be stupid livestock for another dozen life times? We WILL repeat this until you learn."

Please. You are not a Harbinger Of Uncomfortable Truths. And yes, that IS what you're trying to come off as.

Furthermore, your precious "day of retribution" is not coming. And be glad for that, because if it did you'd be one of the starving masses, not the smug paternal figure you're fantasizing about being.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[raddan]

I like to think of "greed" as "primarily self-motivated". If one can divorce oneself for a moment from the pejorative, historical usage of "greed", and think about it like this, then I think that certain economic policies make sense. In computer science (and indeed, economics), there are a class of problems that can be solved using what is called a greedy algorithm.

Essentially, it works like this: Decisions are made in accordance with being "locally optimal". In some cases, if the conditions of the problem are right, these locally optimal choices, in aggregate, form a 'globally optimal' solution. The key thing, though, for this to work, are that the conditions are just right. In computer science, greedy algorithms are often employed to find shortest paths (useful for routing datagrams as well as delivery trucks), and other kinds of global answers where the problem is composed of many small decisions.

Now, it turns out that there are some places where this is very useful when talking about economies, and this is where the "usefulness" of greed comes in. Actors who are "greedy", i.e., primarily self-motivated, tend to make locally-optimal solutions (of course, people are complex beings, and they don't always make the "best" decisions for themselves; this is an area of active research in economics). People who are in a position to influence the fates of economies (e.g., legislators), can use this behavior to encourage certain outcomes. E.g., the "Cap and Trade" carbon emissions model depends precisely on this strategy: allow companies to make the best decision for themselves, but "stack the deck", so to speak, so that the "best" decision leads to the globally optimal one, i.e., the emission of less greenhouse gases.

This is where capitalism tends to flourish as a strategy versus socialism. The problem with capitalism, of course, is that globally optimal solutions are not always possible in this very free environment: the ending of hunger, poverty, public health; the enforcement of laws; the maintenance of infrastructure, and so on. These problems persist and are sometimes worse with capitalist solutions. And so you end up seeing an admixture of socialist philosophy (welfare, public transportation, state-run or regulated water, sewer, electricity, and broadcast infrastructure), imperialist philosophy (standing army, police force), democratic philosophy (elected officials, no nobility, balance of power), and capitalist philosophy (largely-free market, liberalized and secular government to prevent interference in trade and prosperity). Yeah, it's ugly, but so far, it's the best thing we've figured out. So far, I have found no evidence that there are better systems, except maybe a benevolent dictator, and those tend to end badly (like Alexander II of Russia, because if there's one thing people hate, it's doing good things for no reason.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

I know excellent healers of all different stripes who became healers because that is what they love. I also know greedy shits who became dentists because they wanted to make a lot of money.

No, you don't.

Interestingly, dentists have one of the higher suicide rates among the various professions.

No, they don't. For someone who likes to bloviate about what the stupid common masses think, you're awfully eager to repeat things that "everybody knows" like one of them.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[dbcad7]

I don't think that wealth makes people unhappy.. I do think that we hit a wall where fear of losing wealth by some, has made our society in general unhappy. Fear is what caused company after company to lay off people.. people laid off can not afford to spend, thereby reinforcing that the decision to lay people off was the right one.. So now we are in a position where the government is having to try (who knows if they will succeed) and throw money out there to create jobs, so that people will have money to spend, and companies will need to hire again. The thing is, that many of the same people who are bitching loudest about spending government money to solve the problem, are not hiring. We can't just keep supporting such a large portion of the population on unemployment forever.. I myself spent a good part of a year on unemployment, and I know several others that are about a year and a half into it. The extensions keep coming, because they have to, otherwise we are going to have an even greater homeless population. I finally lucked into a pretty good gig, and been there for about a half a year.. but I know it's tough out there... I am perhaps no better than the mega corporations that I am complaining about, because of what I lived through I am hording my money as best I can until things pick up for everyone and I can feel a little more comfortable that if I lost this job, I could find another.. To have options is happiness, and freedom IMHO and right now the options are mighty slim.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

No, you don't.

Um, yes actually, I do. I went to highschool with one in particular. Greedy. Shit. I might mention that he was also a member of the burgeoning Jewish community, fulfilling the stereotype in that manner which is painfully awkward for observers to be near. But do go on and pretend you know more about my life than I do. Do you find that sort of delusion necessary in order to maintain your existence? Just how horrid is the truth of your life that you have to pretend knowledge you can't possible have?

No, they don't. For someone who likes to bloviate about what the stupid common masses think, you're awfully eager to repeat things that "everybody knows" like one of them.

Aw, you're just angry because four out of five dentists agree with my misinformation. In any case, this quote from your article is rather more damning. . . "Suicide among white male American dentists is higher than average but not as high as among white male American doctors."

So I guess any medical profession will do for our subject. Just as long as he removes himself from the gene pool quickly so that we have one less greed-motivated practitioner to deal with in the world.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

Self-interest IS human nature. A species that does not have self interest does not survive, it's genes die off and are replaced by those that do have self-interest. Welcome to life. Deny it all you want but that's the truth.

Well, we have crocodiles and elephants. One will eat their own babies and the other will help animals which are not even the same species out of mud holes. Yes, we all eat to live, and that means killing, but there are degrees across the scale. You sound like you've chosen to lean more towards the reptilian approach.

And yes, it takes about 10 years to learn any craft or skill really well. And it is indeed nearly always grueling and difficult. I've bloodied myself and endured all manner of hardship while mastering my professional skills. Why anybody would choose to embark on a course of study they aren't attracted to from a soul level is due largely, I think, to ignorance regarding the nature of free will and internal passions.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

Why not go the whole way and invent all your own words? Quthiaz, cnubto quthiaz!

Oh My GAWWWWWWD, LOL, ROFL, you pawnzed that biyatch!

I mean, wow, just wow!

--That's acting. That's all it ever is. It's not expressing anything genuine. It's simple pack mentality exerting itself. Punish the little chicken in the pecking order using group-sanctioned attacks. It's the lowest form of human existence. We were built to be more than moronic highschool popularity brats. In a teenager still learning how to be human, this is okay. It's a lesson. If you are older, then it passes into the zone of embarrassing.

Words are tools which, while inadequate most of the time, can be used to express one's thoughts. If your 'thoughts' can be contained in pre-constructed expressions you heard somewhere else and want to try on, then your thoughts are probably not terribly genuine either.

All I'm saying is that if you don't think before you type, then it's easy to wonder if you're thinking at all.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, yes actually, I do. I went to highschool with one in particular. Greedy. Shit. I might mention that he was also a member of the burgeoning Jewish community, fulfilling the stereotype in that manner which is painfully awkward for observers to be near

This is a lie.

But do go on and pretend you know more about my life than I do. Do you find that sort of delusion necessary in order to maintain your existence? Just how horrid is the truth of your life that you have to pretend knowledge you can't possible have

I do have that knowledge. Your writing style reveals more about you than you realize. You're about to try turning this back on me, but you're simply not smart enough to make it work.

Aw, you're just angry because four out of five dentists agree with my misinformation.

No, you're just angry because you've been shown to be taking old wives' tales at face value. It is absolute and undeniable proof that you are gullible and stupid. That knowledge sends you into screaming fits, which you ineptly attempt to cover by feigning amusement because that's what you see people do on television.

In any case, this quote from your article is rather more damning. . . "Suicide among white male American dentists is higher than average but not as high as among white male American doctors."

It isn't damning at all. You've shown no causal link of any kind, preferring instead to take refuge in the "correlation == causation" fallacy, something else that proves you to be identical to the "mindless masses" to whom you want to think you're superior.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Rakishi]

You sound like you've chosen to lean more towards the reptilian approach.

When did I ever say anything about myself? I'm talking about people in general, society and so on. What I'm like and what you're like doesn't matter, it's the other 6+ billion people which really matters. You're apparently not only incapable of understanding that other people aren't like you but also that anyone would be capable of possessing such understanding.

And yes, it takes about 10 years to learn any craft or skill really well.

Learn it well? It takes 10 years to even begin learning to be a doctor, school doesn't teach you much you know. That's 10 years of making no money and spending probably 80 hours a week on it.

Why anybody would choose to embark on a course of study they aren't attracted to from a soul level is due largely, I think, to ignorance regarding the nature of free will and internal passions.

No, it's again your ignorance of human nature. Doubt you're even worth talking to you anymore really since your view is so utterly delusion. Most people don't have a passion for anything productive, many other people will be perfectly happy doing one of many things. Work s work in the end. A way to pay the bills and nothing else. Money helps them pick the thing which while very hard is also useful to society, that's the point of capitalism.

You know what most people really have a passion for? Their family. Not their job, not society, not humanity. They'll deal with the worst job in the world to help put food on the table. If money isn't an issue they'll pick whatever job lets them spend the most time with their family. If you look at more socialist countries you'll see that work is the one thing they avoid caring or spending time on as much as possible.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

This is a lie.

Believe whatever you want.

I do have that knowledge. Your writing style reveals more about you than you realize. You're about to try turning this back on me, but you're simply not smart enough to make it work.

Uh huh.

My writing style reveals *everything* about me; always has, always will. But you're either faulty of memory or you don't know how to read anywhere nearly as well as you think you can. Either way, you're in gross error. But this is only to be expected; the time of the Mercury Retrograde is upon us! All the false crap we've spent time believing to be true gets hauled out into the light during such a phase. I've learned to go limp and roll with the punches during these times; there's a lot which can be learned about oneself when illusions come crashing down. (For instance, I learned that dentists are not at the top of the list of suicidal doctor types.) Are you ready to learn your lessons?

No, you're just angry because you've been shown to be taking old wives' tales at face value. It is absolute and undeniable proof that you are gullible and stupid. That knowledge sends you into screaming fits, which you ineptly attempt to cover by feigning amusement because that's what you see people do on television.

Screaming fits? Wow. Whoever it is you think I am sounds like a real piece of work. I certainly feel silly when I make an error, and I generally like to rebound with a joke, but I've also become pretty good at laughing not just at others but at my own ego as well. I've been wrong many times before and I will be again. Humor is pretty much required to combat the ego.

Now. . , are you sure you're not looking inward a bit here? Because if I may say so, your own writing style and, "absolute, undeniable proof of my gullibility and stupidity" is beginning to sound a little 'off'. Are you by any chance the type of person who threw tantrums on the T-Ball pitch before overwrought parents inquired about medication? Paranoid/manic-depressive/schizoid/borderline personalities; I've had occasion to experience several of those up close over the course of my life. (Along with Jewish dentists. Believe it or not.)

It isn't damning at all. You've shown no causal link of any kind, preferring instead to take refuge in the "correlation == causation" fallacy, something else that proves you to be identical to the "mindless masses" to whom you want to think you're superior.

Oh dear! Look up "hyperbole" and get back to me. We "superior beings" make regular use of the stuff when poking the lunatic fringe.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

When did I ever say anything about myself? I'm talking about people in general, society and so on. What I'm like and what you're like doesn't matter, it's the other 6+ billion people which really matters. You're apparently not only incapable of understanding that other people aren't like you but also that anyone would be capable of possessing such understanding.

I'm sorry. I made the assumption that you were studying medicine. It was both a bit of generosity and gross error on my part. I must say you didn't seem altogether suited for such study, but I prefer to assume heart and intelligence in the people I'm talking with and then adjust accordingly as they reveal themselves.

Learn it well? It takes 10 years to even begin learning to be a doctor, school doesn't teach you much you know. That's 10 years of making no money and spending probably 80 hours a week on it.

Yeah. That's about right for most difficult skills. Ten years of hard practice before the difficulty of re-learning things well enough to function effectively as a professional. Becoming a doctor takes work. What's your point exactly? That this makes it okay for a person to become a greed-driven monster who puts his/her welfare above others? We're talking about healers here, right? Hell on earth is where doctors serve out of greed rather than compassion.

You know what most people really have a passion for? Their family. Not their job, not society, not humanity. They'll deal with the worst job in the world to help put food on the table. If money isn't an issue they'll pick whatever job lets them spend the most time with their family.

Yes. This is where mob families come from. Putting your clan first rather than society in general. The ability to have compassion for one's family does imply something above the baby-eating crocodile, but it is also a few levels beneath the ultimate evolution of human awareness we are capable of. We are all one, after all. But this not something everybody is even capable of accessing, let alone practicing.

Socialism only works when the crocodiles and mobsters have been weeded out. It won't happen, and thus we will always have slavery. And scary doctors who sell Palestinian livers.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe whatever you want.

It's the truth, and literally everyone who read your post knows it. You were trying to artificially inflate your credibility and you did it very badly.

My writing style reveals *everything* about me; always has, always will.

You pay lip service to that fact but haven't really internalized it, otherwise you would understand that this is why a complete stranger on the internet has been able to analyze you with perfect accuracy. Every single thing I've said about you is merely a repeat of a confession you've already shrieked at the top of your lungs without realizing it.

I've learned to go limp and roll with the punches during these times; there's a lot which can be learned about oneself when illusions come crashing down. (For instance, I learned that dentists are not at the top of the list of suicidal doctor types.)

Further proof of your stupidity. The lesson available to you here wasn't "dentists aren't the most suicidal professionals", but rather "don't repeat ill-researched factoids you heard from a sitcom". Even with me spelling it out to you right now, you have failed to learn this simple lesson and will continue to embarrass yourself in the future as a result.

Screaming fits? Wow. Whoever it is you think I am sounds like a real piece of work. I certainly feel silly when I make an error, and I generally like to rebound with a joke, but I've also become pretty good at laughing not just at others but at my own ego as well.

No, you haven't. This claim is directly contradicted by the desperation evident in your previous posts. You're trying to cover for yourself again, and again it isn't working.

Now. . , are you sure you're not looking inward a bit here? Because if I may say so, your own writing style and, "absolute, undeniable proof of my gullibility and stupidity" is beginning to sound a little 'off'. Are you by any chance the type of person who threw tantrums on the T-Ball pitch before overwrought parents inquired about medication?

As I said you would, you've tried to take the I'm-rubber-you're-glue approach. And also as I said, you lack the intellectual chops to make it happen.

Paranoid/manic-depressive/schizoid/borderline personalities; I've had occasion to experience several of those up close over the course of my life. (Along with Jewish dentists. Believe it or not.)

Nobody believes it, including you.

Oh dear! Look up "hyperbole" and get back to me. We "superior beings" make regular use of the stuff when poking the lunatic fringe.

I'm not the one who needs to look it up. Hyperbole is an exaggeration. You were expressing (what you stupidly thought was) a fact to be taken literally. That is exactly the opposite of hyperbole. And by the way, you are part of the lunatic fringe, as proven by your claim that "anyone against socialism deserves to be a slave". Such a position can ONLY be held by a craven idiot using an extreme position as a thought shelter.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

otherwise you would understand that this is why a complete stranger on the internet has been able to analyze you with perfect accuracy

Ah. So NOW you're a "complete stranger" performing an analysis with "perfect accuracy". Before, you had implied that you knew all of my personal associations well enough to call me a liar regarding the people I went to school with. Which is it? Are you going to creep up behind some random guy you think you know and confront him? (And then construct for yourself a story about how he was only pretending to not know you?)

You have already stated with categorical 100% certainty several things about me which are quite false. People who are truly in love with science and critical thought strive to avoid making such statements because there is always a chance they might not be correct or that there is some factor they have overlooked. But there IS a type of person who does make absolute statements and believes in the fiercely. . .

The paranoid/schizophrenic thinks that everything is about him. He sees connections and patterns where there are none and he believes his analysis of the world to be entirely beyond reproach. His own sanity is the last thing he questions. Watch that film, "A Beautiful Mind", (though you'll find no beauty there; only tragedy). It portrays this kind of sickness quite well. Interestingly, I note that you are familiar with maths and/or computer programming. Programmers, I've found, tend to be more subject to this kind of tunnel thinking and subsequent social malady than others.

Look, I apologize for making fun of you. Maybe you're genuinely nuts or maybe you just need to spend a few days outside clearing your head, but right now there's obviously something out of whack in your brain. And that's nothing to be ashamed of, but it IS worth fixing. --Stop and think back to all the people who looked at you oddly when you flew off the handle. Maybe there wasn't anything wrong with them. Remember, you are the common factor in all of your relationships.

Hopefully it's just a matter of too little sunshine, but even if you are sick, there is help. From the cases I've seen which you remind me of, I've noted that a good diet and exercise helps a great deal to ground one's mind.

-FL

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. So NOW you're a "complete stranger" performing an analysis with "perfect accuracy".

I always was.

Before, you had implied that you knew all of my personal associations well enough to call me a liar regarding the people I went to school with

No, you moron. The point is that it's obvious to everyone that you were making up that nonsense about how you, like, totally know a whole bunch of doctors, in a transparent attempt at lending your position a credibility you're not capable of giving it legitimately.

The reason it's so obvious is that you're such a terrible liar - and so prone to checking every box on the "dumb kid losing Internet argument" checklist* - that you've effectively tacked a disclaimer onto the post saying "This is a desperate lie".

Actually knowing you in real life would be redundant, because it wouldn't provide any relevant information that you hadn't already (inadvertently) given away in your stupid posts.

* Once again, you'll try to "give me a taste of my own medicine" by claiming that my exposure of your dishonesty and stupidity is actually one of the same cliches to which I refer. Once again your ineptitude will prevent you from having any chance pulling it off, and only cause you to reinforce my point.

Re:Political science in 8-bits

[Fantastic Lad]

No, you moron. The point is that it's obvious to everyone that you were making up that nonsense about how you, like, totally know a whole bunch of doctors, in a transparent attempt at lending your position a credibility you're not capable of giving it legitimately.

Ah. I think I'm beginning to see now what's been going on; this is how you actually think reality is for everybody. That knowing people for you really IS some sort of difficult stunt.

Here's what I'm guessing: You have difficulty believing that I might know people who are dentists because YOU don't know people who are dentists and you think your experience in the world is normal. . .

As it happens, lots of people I went to school with went on to hold interesting jobs. But that's just for starters. Since I left home, I've met many, many people in all manner of profession. I get out and enjoy the simple pleasure of conversation. I enjoy talking with my Dentist about more than just teeth. Haven't you ever talked with your dentist? Haven't you ever switched dentists or doctors because you didn't like who they were or how they treated you? It's hardly a mystery. This is how the world really works when you're not stuck in an introverted head-space.

--But more than that; I've met politicians and truck drivers and scientists and all kinds of doctors. I know soldiers and athletes and actors and journalists and pilots and. . , well you get the idea. Just all kinds of different people, all simply by walking out my front door and making the effort to connect with the rest of humanity. It's not hard at all. If you are open to connections, then going to something as simple as a wedding will put you in close quarters with a dozen or more fascinating individuals. If you try, you might meet some interesting people yourself and have some insightful conversations. But first you'll have to stop squinting at everybody so suspiciously, stop sitting quietly by yourself and stop assuming that everybody in the world plays by the limited and paranoid rules of social interaction you seem to have accepted as normal. Because while it may be normal for some people, it is not by any means necessary.

No tricks. No mystery. No attempt to inflate my claims. No need for complex analysis. Because really, sometimes a Dentist is just a Dentist.

Happy New Year.

-FL

Coulda tried harder in TFA picture

[Anonymous Coward]

I cracked up when I saw the picture of Santa and an RV in Kansas... with large, red mountains in the background. They could have tried a little harder for some flat land RV pic to edit.

Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because I'm sure they signed an NDA which they are now flouting.

Details of the internal design and processes of Amazon's distribution centers are probably part of Amazon's competitive advantage. It's tough to make money selling $20 billion worth of stuff at a few bucks per order. Try selling physical goods online sometimes - it's not easy. Effective order fulfillment processes (low error rates, cost efficient packaging, quick order processing) can easily be the difference between making money and losing money.

Re:Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Any competitive advantage which relies on the silence of thousands of employees earning nearly-minimum wage with no benefits, isn't.

Re:Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[chromatic]

It's tough to make money selling $20 billion worth of stuff at a few bucks per order.

I doubt that's where Amazon.com makes most of its money. Any company with that much retail volume can certainly negotiate favorable contracts with its suppliers. It's easy to imagine making lots of money from the float.

Re:Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[winwar]

"Any competitive advantage which relies on the silence of thousands of employees earning nearly-minimum wage with no benefits, isn't."

Those amazon employees make more than most retail and warehouse employees in the US. Certainly more than the small retailers. They do not have benefits because they are TEMPORARY employees. And if they could get benefits, they would actually be able to afford them, unlike the others.

Amazon's treatment of its employees is a step up in the US.

Re:Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[Neuroelectronic]

This website seems to agree with you:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200285450

Re:Chris & Cherie might not be welcome back...

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Oh, I agree! I guess my statement could easily be as snarky towards Amazon. Not intended at all.

Re:The point is ?...

[Chris Pimlott]

Its a mix of the itinerant fruit pickers here in southern Australia

Ah, you mean the backpackers.

Re:The point is ?...

[MichaelSmith]

Its a mix of the itinerant fruit pickers here in southern Australia

Ah, you mean the backpackers.

And a lot of itinerant country people who won't identify as backpackers. I met a few of them travelling around years ago.

How it's done, and has been done for a century.

[Animats]

Their fulfillment centers are pretty impressive. Before I started working there I would have never realized that so much though, planning and technology went into packing the right stuff into the right boxes.

The basic system is a century old and was invented at Sears, Roebuck and Company, the first really big mail order operation. They had several city blocks in Chicago for what they called "The Works", their fulfillment center.

In the "schedule system" at Sears, orders came in, and each order was assigned a assembly bin for a 15-minute window. Picking tickets were generated for the various departments, each with the bin number and 15-minute window. The stock pickers in each department started on a new batch of tickets every 15 minutes, and as they picked items in their department, they attached the pick ticket to the item or a basket containing it, and sent it to the order assembly area by chute, conveyor, or pneumatic tube. At the order assembly area, incoming items were routed to the appropriate bin. At the end of each 15 minute window, each assembly bin was dumped to a basket, which went on a conveyor to the checking and accounting section. There, the items in the bin were matched against the order and the bill totaled up. The baskets then went to the packaging and shipping section and out of the Works.

Amazon's plant works about the same way, except that their computers know what's in inventory, so they don't have many "fails", where an item can't be found. They don't have to work to such a rigid clock-driven timetable, because the computers know when an order is fully assembled, and can allow more or less time depending on the complexity of the order. The basic concept, that a set of orders is being picked at any one time, picking orders fan out to departments, and items come back to an assigned bin for checking and packaging, remains the same.

Re:How it's done, and has been done for a century.

[pamar]

Neat. Where can I read a bit more about this?

TIA

Entitlements= unemployment= lower quality of life

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Superior talent for moving boxes ? You're kidding right ? And not just in this specific instance ... The large majority of jobs are low-skilled, low-productivity and very low margin jobs, even in IT.

You want better conditions for these people ? Lower the cost of labor so this work can be done with more people, without increasing costs too much. Obviously if you increase costs per employee like you suggest (and force people to accept conditions they may or may not care about, e.g. Any student I know would much rather have a short, very intensive (even little to no lunch break), and better paid work) than the conditions you force on them.

Otherwise you're simply forcing companies to destroy jobs that are below a certain productivity. Since the bulk of employment is at the very low skill (and productivity) level any raise in minimum productivity (minimum wage = minimum productivity for obvious reasons) will cause staggering numbers of layoffs. Raising minimum productivity by 5% would certainly kill over 20%-30% of jobs, nationwide.

That's how it works, you know. A company hires a person, at cost X, and then makes that person do work of value Y to society, which is then sold for price Z, which correlates very strongly with Y (in a free market society). Obviously unless Z >> X (significantly larger) that person will be fired.

Before you say "we'll simply outlaw firing people" so you know one of two things will fire these people :
-> the company's (or government's) good sense
-> the company's (or government's) bankrupty

And if printing more money is your solution to that, you might want to look at countries like Zimbabwe.

The solution ? Make sure a better life becomes possible at a lower wage. Of course that means lowering costs, and increasing choice. Increasing choice, both for employers and employees. The more competition there is in the labor market, at both sides of the equation, the better life will be in America.

Labor listens to the laws of supply & demand just like everyone else. Ideally taxes should be limited at the level that say 98% of supply is utilized. Needless to say, they're seriously above that level for the moment, and Obama's done nothing but raise them. Granted, some (even a lot) of the cost raise was entirely not Obama's fault, but at his paygrade that's no excuse. Obama's not some box mover, who only gets judged on mistakes and targets, he has to perform massively better than status-quo (govt. doing nothing at all). He's spent trillion(s ?) while making the situation worse than his own predictions of what would happen if they didn't do anything at all.

Re:Entitlements= unemployment= lower quality of li

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

"minimum wage = minimum productivity"

Should have been :

minimum wage + tax (sum employer and employee paid taxes, including corporate taxes) = minimum productivity

Whoops.

Every city has seasonal workers

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past they were called GYPSIES.

Society is to blame... Wait, scratch that

[Anonymous Coward]

Inspired by your Libertarian yarn, I began writing a retort based on my radical left views. (Being a 20-year old left wing activist in Europe.)

However, I did the math and looked at it for a moment but this situation really doesn't seem that horrible to me. Assuming 8 hours of paid work and 4 hour of travel a day and working only on weekdays, you would get about 1850 dollars a month for sacrificing 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.

That isn't much, not for those hours. I know people who work 12 hours a day and they really have time for little else: Pretty much all their free time is required to recover from work and no time (or energy) left for hobbies, meeting friends, etc... And after taxes, cost of living, etc. you won't have much left (perhaps a few hundred dollars), so you aren't really saving up any money. (With that speed, it would take the better half of a century before you could buy a house, for example)

So, my argument was going to be that if people are desperate enough that they have no better choices than to trade all their free time away just to earn enough money to pay their immediate bills, there is something seriously wrong. And I still think that it is true for a long term job.

But for short term? I could see some people I know deciding to sacrifice a month by working like hell and use the money to pay the bills for two months. Or to take a short, inexpensive vacation (assuming they usually get enough money from social support, etc. to feed themselves but not enough to enjoy themselves)

It really doesn't sound that bad even to me, as long as we are talking about highly seasonal jobs. It isn't ideal (adding 2 dollars to the hourly wage would improve the situation by huge amounts) even then but nothing that would provoke me enough to begin building the barricades (which doesn't require that much, to be honest).

Re:Try to avoid buying things from Amazon.

[larry bagina]

Aren't you still boycotting them due to the 1-click patent?

I'm in a good place with "cheap" torrents.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"As long as our justification is the almighty dollar, this situation is only getting worse. "

Who's "our"? The fatcats you blame for everything? Or the customers who want everything "cheap"?

Re:Entitlements= unemployment= lower quality of li

[Mr. Slippery]

(minimum wage = minimum productivity for obvious reasons) will cause staggering numbers of layoffs. Raising minimum productivity by 5% would certainly kill over 20%-30% of jobs, nationwide.

Bullshit. The minimum wage has been raised many times, and such massive job losses never occured. The impact on employment is small and diminishes to insignificance over time.

Needless to say, [taxes are] seriously above that level for the moment, and Obama's done nothing but raise them.

In fact, our taxes are near historically low levels, and are low compared to other industrialized nations.

So. Any other ahistorical claims you'd like to make?

Re:Entitlements= unemployment= lower quality of li

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Sorry but I refuse to take my facts from a site that does not consider "creating economic justice" a tax, and that considers "making companies pay for the environmental damage they cause" anything other than a way to increase taxes and to blame those "evil companies" for the resulting price hike (since obviously it's keeping people alive and happy, also called 'the economy', that's causing the environmental problems, and companies are only a barely significant part of the equation). It is beyond obvious that the dates chosen for comparison, which fail to match those of any official institutions, are meant to cherry-pick data.

I fear that it's not so much "reality" that shows it's "liberal bias" on this site, but something else. Someone's dishonesty.