Slashdot Mirror
E-commerce Is Concentrating Jobs, Not Killing Them (axios.com)
A reader shares a report: The growing popularity of online shopping has hit traditional retailers hard, culminating in a spate of retail bankruptcies and store closures in recent years. But according to a new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the retail apocalypse has actually created nearly as many jobs as it has killed. Though e-commerce and other non-store retailers have hired nearly as many workers as traditional retailers have cut, these new jobs are much more geographically concentrated.
The jobs are geographically concentrated in the middle of nowhere, where few people actually live, because real estate is cheap. This leads to more commuting, where retail jobs are located near where people hang their hats.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This would explain Amazon's proposal to build a second "headquarters" that's been having every low-cost municipality begging for the chance to host it lately. Maybe they want to continue poaching AWS talent from Microsoft in Seattle and Google in SV, and send all the "B players" in the retail division to some cheap locale. The problem with e-commerce vs. traditional retail is that all your employment funnels up into warehouses and back-office campuses, and the jobs in every smallish area of the country dry up. And over time, those back-office campus jobs will get eliminated as well, so I'm guessing this consolidation is temporary. An example I personally know of is the company that manages my retirement account. Headquarters is in Boston, and I'm sure that's where they have all the super-smart traders, fund managers and executives. But my statements and customer service calls from from some back office in Dallas.
The problem I see in general with the labor market is that the entry level positions are being eliminated, and there's a big gap between zero experience and expert in terms of requirements for jobs. Retail used to fill that gap at the low end, and entry-level corporate work used to fill the need to soak up all the generic college students with a generic BS in management. I remember 20 years ago seeing people who partied their way to a degree doing as little work as possible just show up to group interviews senior year and get picked for some random corporate function. The world will be a very different place if the only entry level position is at Amazon's fulfillment center packing boxes 12 hours a day...in previous times these students I'm referring to would be able to become senior paper pushers, then managers and directors and have a good life. When you kill that career ladder for anyone except those who can write web front ends in Node.js, you're setting society up for a huge disruption.
Am I advocating make-work? Yes, I think I am because the alternative of massive unemployment is not something we're set up to deal with. If you live in one of the middle-tier cities (think places like Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, SLC, etc.) you most likely have some huge company's back-office functions located there. Drive by their campuses sometime - they probably occupy one or more huge office buildings and employ thousands of people. Each one of those thousands of people is supporting a household, buying things, paying taxes and having kids. What will we do when every one of their jobs is eliminated either due to automation or offshoring?
I have clients scattered across the US, some live in metro areas some in rural areas.
;) Change is a constant ;)
Their servers are located god knows where in some data center. Only 3 live in the same state I do.
I do a majority of my work remotely, from my home office or my office/work shop that is 2 miles from my home.
It is true, Amazon is having a large effect on things. And they are really hurting most small e-commerce sites, since Amazon skims 8%-15% off the top of every invoice total, which really hurts the smaller operators since Amazon takes a large chunk of what little margin there is on most items plus in order to get real visibility on Amazon you must use fulfilled by Amazon and they also charge an inventory management fee if you do that.
But if Amazon gets the sales volume up enough an Amazon store can work. But their user interface for managing your store truly sucks. And their master inventory system is a complete mess. And it is a constant battle with them as they re categorize your products from 8% commission groups to 15% commission groups and you spend a week or 2 arguing with them to get them changed back to the proper group. Then next month they will move some other inventory items to the 15% group. It is a mess, but a mess that is forced on more and more small e-commerce sites.
BTW That is why Amazon supports Internet Sales Taxes, They want to force small e-commerce sites to switch to Amazon Stores so they get first shot at skimming profit off the top of all sales.
Now getting back to how this relates to the article. These e-commerce sites need technical individuals to help them wade through the technical complexities if they really want to be successful. So there is a niche for tech outside of the high cost of living hubs. But it takes a different approach and a lot of work.
Now in the end Amazon "WILL/HAS" win/won. And individuals like me will need to find other niches that allow us to live where we want. But that is just the way of things
In an eCommerce setup, the salesperson is totally bypassed
That is a feature, not a bug.
I don't believe this study has any merit whatsoever.
I agree that it seems implausible, but it was done by the Federal Reserve. What motivation would they have to lie or distort?