Amazon Will Raise Its Minimum Wage To $15 For All 350,000 US Workers (recode.net)

Amazon said Tuesday it's raising the minimum wage for all 350,000 of its U.S. employees to $15, effective next month. From a report: The new pay threshold will go into effect Nov. 1 and impact all full-time, temporary and seasonal workers across the company's U.S. warehouse and customer service teams as well as Whole Foods, the company said in a blog post. It did not disclose what its current minimum pay wage is for U.S. workers, perhaps in part because there is not one set rate. "We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead," Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos said in a statement. "We're excited about this change and encourage our competitors and other large employers to join us." Alongside the cash compensation bump, Amazon said it will eventually eliminate its practice of granting stock to these workers and will instead institute a program that allows them to purchase Amazon stock through the company. The announcement comes as Amazon faces increased criticism over its pay and treatment of warehouse workers. Senator Bernie Sanders, in particular, has been relentless in his criticism of Amazon over the last few months, proposing a bill that would tax the company as a penalty for having workers who need food stamps and other public assistance to make ends meet.

Comments

2nd 18th century

[Errol backfiring]

... for having workers who need food stamps and other public assistance to make ends meet.

So, in effect, nothing has changed in 300 years. This is work ethics from the steam age.

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

Would you outlaw jobs for teenagers? It's already vastly harder to get a teenage shit job than it was in my day,

There's a place in the market for shit jobs for peolpe still living at home, going to school, and looking for both pocket money and learning how to work any job (show up on time, sober and well groomed - you'd be amazed). It's bad when adults find themselves working such jobs, but if you have no skills at all, you have to start somewhere.

Amazon warehouse jobs are a tier above that, and it makes sense they pay somewhat better. Those are low-skill jobs for adults, but still there's a big part of their workforce that works part time, either with a second job or other responsibilities. Part-time work should not be effectively outlawed.

Re:2nd 18th century

[sjames]

If raising the minimum wage would effectively outlaw part time warehouse work at Amazon, how do you explain Amazon voluntarily increasing to $15/hr? Looks like it isn't so impossible after all.

And if it's not actually impossible, then nothing is "effectively outlawed" at all.

I'm reminded of an interview with a sandwich shop owner in N.Y. city complaining bitterly that with unemployment going down he has to be nice to his employees and even, God forbid, make sandwiches himself sometimes.

Re:2nd 18th century

[skaralic]

... for having workers who need food stamps and other public assistance to make ends meet.

So, in effect, nothing has changed in 300 years. This is work ethics from the steam age.

I bet you love that free shipping though...

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

If raising the minimum wage would effectively outlaw part time warehouse work at Amazon, how do you explain Amazon voluntarily increasing to $15/hr?

I never made any such claim. But demanding that all Amazon workers are paid enough where they don't need food stamps? Hows that going to work for people who work 24 hours a week? 12 Hours a week?

Re:2nd 18th century

[sjames]

A lot better than it will if they don't see a wage increase.

It would work even better if all employers had to pay better so they would make more at their other job as well.

Perhaps even enough that they don't need taxpayer funded assistance anymore. It might even eventually be enough to cover the last round of tax cuts.

Don't you think you might enjoy not paying a cheap-ass employer payroll subsidy tax?

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

So how is it ever going to be practical to pay a "living wage" to a low-skill worker who only works 12 hours a week? Did you think that through? The guy who works 48 hours a week should make six figures?

Re:2nd 18th century

[sjames]

Your dislike of the idea has lead you right off the rails in search of an objection. Even $100/hr isn't a living wage if you only work one hour. "Living wage" has always meant an hourly rate that offers a decent living if you work at or near 40 hrs/week.

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

But that's not what Bernie was demanding. His proposed law was to tax Amazon because some of their workers needed food stamps. Do you see where this thread comes from?

No matter what the likes of Amazon and Walmart do, they can't remove these talking points from the Bernies of the world, so why should they bother beyond simple supply and demand?

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

That includes people who choose the mix of part time work and checks from the government. In some situations, you actually net less by working more.

Re:2nd 18th century

[sjames]

This thread comes from an article about Amazon raising it's minimum hourly to $15/hr. Then you asked about teens.

As for Sanders, note that his reaction to the $15/hr announcement is that Bezos did exactly the right thing and he has called on other low-paying employers to follow suit.

Re:2nd 18th century

[lgw]

... for having workers who need food stamps and other public assistance to make ends meet.

So, in effect, nothing has changed in 300 years. This is work ethics from the steam age.

This thread.

My point all along has been that you can't practically prevent workers who need (or choose) public assistance without outlawing starter jobs, part time work, and other vital things.

BTW, my Amazon sources tell me this was simple market pressure, that they decided to apply across the country (even the few areas that didn't need it to source labor) to make a good PR splash. Make of that what you will.

Re:2nd 18th century

[sjames]

It is worth noting that more and more parents wish to discourage their kids from those "starter" jobs anyway since it mostly trains them to accept being treated as sub-human by bad managers while being underpaid.

However, it can be safely said that few teens actually qualify for any of the benefits programs since they still live with their parents.

This is not helpful

[JackieBrown]

Doing something like this across the board makes no sense since so many locations have completely different costs of living.

Some areas, this will be so over paid that it will cause prices to rise as other companies start having to match the wages.

In other areas, 15 is not even close to meeting a living wage that it will do nothing to help.

Re:This is not helpful

[SoonerSkeene]

I've wondered if the minimum should be tied to inflation so you keep the same buying power. That is, regardless of inflation, your salary will always get you the same number of loafs of bread or such. But clearly that isn't a single shot solution, since as you said the cost of living in (say) San Francisco is wildly different than Nowhere, OK.

Re:This is not helpful

[hispeedzintarwebz]

I think the issue that would arise is that (in a vacuum) the cost of that bread is dependent on paying bakery workers $7.50 an hour, and if the minimum wage was determined to be $15, then the labor cost increases the cost of that bread, which has to be adjusted for either in terms of quality/quantity of materials, or in an increased overall price. Suddenly the $15 bread-adjusted minimum wage has to be increased, and so on. Bread is cheap, so it's sort of an abstract example - but it's still a matter of labor value compared to the value of what the labor creates. They are certainly tied to each other, but not at parity. At least that's the economic argument - I'm sure there are plenty who would dispute it. And I'm sure it doesn't always hold true, and it doesn't account for government subsidies, etc. You're right, it's not a single shot solution, but it's an interesting thought. I wonder how something like that could happen but also not result in price increases when the market determines that the value of someone making bread is less than the value of the bread itself. I would argue that if companies weren't subsidized both in tax breaks and in not having to pay higher wages (due to knowing that their employees can get benefits to fund the gap) that they would be forced to compete more on wages and benefits, but that too is in a vacuum. I would be curious to see what an Amazon with no tax incentives or minimum wage, competing with other companies with neither, would fare and at what level their wages would end up.

Re:This is not helpful

[lactose99]

$15/hr is overpaid in what context?

Re:This is not helpful

[jellomizer]

So people who live in a populated area, with a lot of job opportunity (high price areas) will move from living in abject poverty to just poverty.
The people who live in a less populated area, with little other job opportunities (low price areas) can now have a comfortable life style.

Perhaps there should be more effort in finding way to lower cost of living in Cities, vs. finding ways to improve property costs (AKA raising the cost of living)

Re:This is not helpful

[cordovaCon83]

I doubt that Kentucky will suffer the same issues as Silicon Valley as far income inequality causing housing issues which is the major driving factor behind cost of living.

Re:This is not helpful

[pak9rabid]

Ever been to Goliad, TX?

Re:This is not helpful

[AmiMoJo]

Wages tend to be a small part of the cost of most goods though. When you look at he volume of bread coming out of factories and the number of people working there, wages don't contribute much to the sale price.

Re:This is not helpful

[JackieBrown]

Yeah, I'd say most of Texas outside of some of the major cities.

In fact, in San Antonio 30,000 is enough for a single person to get by comfortably. (May not at the comfort level a lot of the higher middle class that a lot of Slashdot users live at.)

I was making $46 thousand and was the sole provider for my family of 4. Cooking your own meals and not going out for lunch makes a huge difference in a budget.

Re:This is not helpful

[DigressivePoser]

COUGH abolish COUGH

Re:This is not helpful

[Stonent1]

Winner!

Re:This is not helpful

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Warehouses are all located just outside cities. About the same distance, because they are logistic centers. They need to be close to the places the ship to (and next to major truck routes), and where land is cheaper.

Re:This is not helpful

[Thelasko]

Wages tend to be a small part of the cost of most goods though. When you look at he volume of bread coming out of factories and the number of people working there, wages don't contribute much to the sale price.

That argument is very narrow in scope. As a whole, wages are the only cost of most goods. Sure, the staff at the bread factory may not be a significant portion of the cost, but other resources are purchased to make the bread. Those resources have labor costs.

The grain mill has staff to turn the wheat into flour.
The truck driver has to be paid to transport the flour
The farmer has to be paid to grow the wheat.
The truck driver has to be paid to transport the wheat.

It takes labor to find and extract any natural resource. Including oil. The only exception might be the air we breathe.

Re:This is not helpful

[jeff4747]

The grain mill has staff to turn the wheat into flour.

And the mill spends much more on buying wheat than on paying that staff.

The truck driver has to be paid to transport the flour

And his pay is a very small fraction of the cost of the load.

The farmer has to be paid to grow the wheat.

The farmer isn't getting paid a wage, so he's irrelevant to this discussion.

The truck driver has to be paid to transport the wheat.

And his pay is still a very small fraction of the cost of the load.

It takes labor to find and extract any natural resource.

That doesn't mean labor is the most expensive part of that process.

Re:This is not helpful

[jeff4747]

Part of the problem as I see it, is that people expect, for example, a Big Mac to cost the same whether you are at a McDonalds in the middle of San Francisco, or a McDonalds in Nowhere, OK

People have been unable to expect this within a single city, much less across the country. There are nearby McDonalds that are expensive and some that are cheap.

My typical "Oh shit I'm late for work" breakfast is about $2.75 at the one near my house, and about $4.75 at the one near work.

Re:This is not helpful

[king neckbeard]

I don't why there is always so much hand wringing over giving people in the sticks half-decent jobs. Wealthy vacationers are going to do much more harm than these jobs.

Re:This is not helpful

[sjames]

And at each and every one of those steps, labor is a small contributor to the price. Profit for the management and capital class is a larger chunk.

Even less of the cost is attributable to people being paid minimum wage.

Re:This is not helpful

[sjames]

They will likely see some improvement as well since they could more easily get another job paying $15 and their employer can't afford for everyone to leave.

So no, they won't be pissed off. They will see benefits as well.

Re:This is not helpful

[sjames]

So not overpaid, just adequately paid.

Re: This is not helpful

[datavirtue]

Then the fed would be virtually powerless. Not going to happen.

Re:This is not helpful

[c]

In other areas, 15 is not even close to meeting a living wage that it will do nothing to help.

What proportion of Amazon workers at their minimum wage level are living in areas where $15/hr isn't close to a living wage?

I don't know the answer, but it seems rather relevant to deciding if it's a good or bad change.

Re:This is not helpful

[whopis]

In most of those examples, there is still an underlying labor cost.

For example, with the truck driver delivering the load - yes you are right that his labor costs are a small part of the delivery charge. Other costs include the fuel, and paying for the usage of the truck. So we have to look at the cost of those items, and guess what? There is labor included in those. Refining oil has a labor cost. Drilling oil has a labor cost. Making the equipment to drill oil and refine oil has a labor cost.

While at any stage, the labor cost is fairly minimal, it is there at every stage, and it is an accumulating percentage of the cost at any level.

In the end, the vast majority of the cost of any goods are labor. Sure there are some costs that are not associated with labor (real estate rental, for example). But most things boil down to labor at the end of the line.

Re:This is not helpful

[jeff4747]

In most of those examples, there is still an underlying labor cost.

And no one is disputing that. What we are disputing is your attempt to make that labor cost a large part of the overall cost. And it simply isn't.

In the end, the vast majority of the cost of any goods are labor.

[Citation Required]

Let's look at some numbers instead. Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 is a more than 100% increase. So what affect would that ~100% increase have on prices? Well, let's look at the worst-case scenario: Fast food. Because unlike all your examples, a significant percentage of the costs in a fast food restaurant is wages.

That 100% increase in wages translates to....a 4% increase in the cost of the food. Or about 17 cents for a Big Mac.

If a 100% increase in wages only yields a 4% increase in one of the most wage-intensive industries in the country, we probably shouldn't be worried much about the effect on the price of milling wheat into flour.

Re:This is not helpful

[squiggleslash]

I'm not sure what you're saying is 100% true, but that said, the difference between the lowest and highest paid in most companies means that the wages of the bottom 50-80% of the company's employees are rarely a significant part of the sale price.

To put it another way, if you want to reduce costs in most modern corporations, you'd achieve more by firing half the top executives than half the people who do the work.

Re:This is not helpful

[Thelasko]

While at any stage, the labor cost is fairly minimal, it is there at every stage, and it is an accumulating percentage of the cost at any level.

Well said. Precisely my point.

Re:This is not helpful

[galabar]

That works well for Venezuela.

Re:This is not helpful

[Solandri]

Poverty level for a single person is $12,140/yr. Which at 2000 work hours/yr (40 hrs/week, 50 weeks/yr) is $6.06/hr. For a family of 4, it's $25,100/yr, which would translate into $12.55/hr.

So in both cases $15/hr would lift you and your family well out of poverty. Only in Alaska would a family of 4 with a single breadwinner making $15/hr still be in poverty.

Reducing living costs in cities is simple - allow more housing to be constructed, build better transportation to make it feasible to live further from work. Unfortunately, most cities are resistant to this, or are bound by geography which prevents expansion.

Re:This is not helpful

[Thelasko]

That 100% increase in wages translates to....a 4% increase in the cost of the food.

Your example, and the research you cite are microeconomic studies. When we raise the minimum wage, we are not just raising the minimum wage for food service workers, as the study you cited suggests. Minimum wage will go up for all workers. It will have a macroeconomic effect. That will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain. That is not within the scope of the research you cite.

When you sum all of the costs down the supply chain, labor is the dominant force.

Re:This is not helpful

[jeff4747]

That will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain.

Here's what you're desperately skipping over:

It will increase the costs throughout the entire supply chain by a trivial amount because wages are a tiny fraction of the costs in the supply chain.

You keep insisting that the increase will be large because you keep mistakenly thinking wages are a large expense. They aren't. That 4% increase on a 106% increase in wages is one of the worst-case scenarios.

When you sum all of the costs down the supply chain, labor is the dominant force.

Once again [Citation Required].

Any farmers need help with hay?

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I supposed to do with my pitchfork now?

Re:Any farmers need help with hay?

[Opportunist]

Keep it nearby, this ain't gonna change much.

Good for you Amazon

[shaitand]

As for Bernie Sanders bill, he may have had Amazon in mind but the bill remains a good idea. It makes the companies which are systematically subsidizing with tax funds reconcile the bill instead of asking taxpayers to do so.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[shaitand]

Ummm yes... this is a measure which attempts to actually accomplish that. "just not subsidize corporations" is a vague ideal not an actual implementation.

Amazon seems to be ready to compete on wages. Which isn't a total shock since economists have been saying there is no way companies could hold out forever with record low joblessness and continue to deny market realities which dictate a raise in wages.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[drinkypoo]

Which isn't a total shock since economists have been saying there is no way companies could hold out forever with record low joblessness

It is a surprise, if not a shock, because record low unemployment is a myth.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[lgw]

Even with that very broad measure, it's going down, which means upward market pressure on wages. As the economy continues to improve, wages will continue to rise. Let's just keep this economy going as long as we can before the next stupid bubble.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[jeff4747]

An employment-population ratio of 100% is not something to strive for. But that assumption underlies all of the methodology used at ShadowStats.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[shaitand]

Whether or not those stats are more accurate is disputed because while they undoubtedly capture people who are missed (and the most severely unemployed) by the other metric they also capture people who aren't seeking employment. Like most things, it isn't that simple and what most people agree with at the moment has more to do with what fits their politics than reality. Parisians are as bad as sports fans.

That metric is interesting because while it is not a record low as you say, you can see the disparity grow during the Obama years and finally start caving around 2015-2016 and it also is declining. That isn't necessarily critical of Obama policies though, it could have been more an effect of the mess he inherited.

I do think people are misguided regarding recent changes though, cutting taxes on corporations is not the same thing as cutting taxes on wealthy individuals. Cutting taxes on wealthy people who already gain more than they spend wouldn't do much. Money will end up going to the wealthy in proportion but retirement accounts and small investors own huge swathes of the stock in those corporations. They don't just hand the money out to the shareholders for the most part anyway, those gains mostly come from speculation, the saved money generally gets reinvested into increased operations to turn it into even more money. That does mean employment growth which eventually means wage growth. There is nothing partisan about that any more than 2+2=4.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[drinkypoo]

They don't just hand the money out to the shareholders for the most part anyway

Right, they hand it to the executives.

Re:Good for you Amazon

[shaitand]

They hand plenty to the executives but that also tends to take the form of stocks and stock gains which come from speculators rather than revenue. The magical thing about blindly pushing the concept that the stock in some way is the measure of company performance means at the top everything gets tied to the stock so the board and executives always end up with lots of it so their money is tied to the stock price.

Taking money out of the company works against their interests, announcing some new plan or expansion bumps the stock price and if it actually works it fuels EPS and holdings which just grows the stock price even more. It isn't that they aren't greedy enough to take the money and run it's that they are greedy and well educated in matters of finance and know they run with more money this way. It is usually safe to assume one thing about people at the top, they want more.

How many are affected

[SoonerSkeene]

Yes Amazon has 350k US workers, but how many were below this threshold (how many are being impact by the change?)

Re:How many are affected

[Actually, I do RTFA]

t how many were below this threshold (how many are being impact by the change?)

17,000 full time employees, and 20,000 seasonal employees.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Oswald McWeany]

but that's SOCALISM!!

In this case it is capitalism because Amazon is doing it to keep hold of it's workforce and probably to have a better public image so it will sell more crap. The government isn't forcing Amazon's hand so it is capitalism.

as a last-resort

[nimbius]

https://boingboing.net/2018/09... this was done to short-circuit the high likelyhood of unionization at Amazon factories, which could then risk spreading to the corporation as a whole (unionized developers, SRE's, managers.)

Re:as a last-resort

[squiggleslash]

...which is fine. Anti-union campaigns that involve smearing unions and firing unionization advocates suck. Anti-union campaigns that involve improving conditions for workers so they don't need to unionize are a good thing. Even the unions will tell you that.

Re:as a last-resort

[mapkinase]

>unionized developers

As long as more developers needed there will be no union. There is only quantum vacuum level of unemployment among software developers.

How come...

[Comboman]

How come no one worries about inflation due to the constantly rising wages of CEOs and Wall Street douche-bags? How come no one worries about inflation due to tax breaks for the wealthy? It's a specious argument anyway, since the employees will have minimal extra spending money to drive inflation. The difference will be that all their money is coming from their employer instead of their wages being subsidized by government programs like foodstamps.

Re:How come...

[Opportunist]

Their fear is that if the unwashed masses can actually afford something, the increased demand due to a larger amount of people being able to afford something, will drive prices for stuff that only they could afford before up.

What they fail to see is how our economy actually works. If anything, it will result in more supply to hoover up the increased amount of demand, creating jobs and employing more people. Which is pretty unlikely considering the minimal increase in purchasing power.

Re:How come...

[bkmoore]

How come no one worries about inflation due to the constantly rising wages of CEOs and Wall Street douche-bags? ....subsidized by government programs like foodstamps.

Because the powers that be prefer to pit skilled workers against unskilled workers. We tell the $40 per hour worker he's being screwed over by the $10 per hour minimum wage worker. All the while we rob both blind. Inflation is caused by monetary policy PERIOD. Wages. and everything else is a side effect of this policy because it effects the prices of everything that we buy.

Pre-emptive action, to avoid lawmakers.

[xpiotr]

Amazon is facing lawmakers wrath unless they do something,
This is a pre-emptively action, that is to avoid this.
Diverting 0.0x% of their profit to their actual workers is not an actual cost
They are trying to look good in front of the growing critics.
If 15$ is a living wage, remains to be discussed.
For people citing inflation, please consider that
McDonalds in for instance Denmark are able to pay workers an ok salary + 5 weeks of vacation,
while Big Mac prices are not that much higher than the US
Yes, and health care...but that comes from the "high" Danish taxes
Spreading wealth actually creates more wealth...
-- Sig: Now take those bears that you carry in your arms and clean up the swamp.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[AuMatar]

No, its the threat of government intervention like the tax mentioned that would likely cost it more in the end. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with this result. But don't pretend they would have done this absent the likelihood of higher penalties.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Riceballsan]

I don't think it's even to keep the workforce. If they were losing workers they'd have done it a while ago. I think they are doing it to prevent laws from forcing them to do it, as if a law passes forcing them to do it, and the law turns out good for the economy and the common people, the laws might adjust for inflation. Meanwhile if they do it on their own they can say "see we didn't need a law, we did it on our own", then the law fails, and they can hope nobody draws attention when they don't re-adjust for inflation when 15/hr becomes starvation wage.

Re:MAGA!

[Dan667]

at best trump is riding Obama's coattails after Obama fixed the mess bush left. And all indications are trump is screwing the economy up overheating it with money supply. His bad decisions take a while to catch up.

Hard Workers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they doing for the people who worked their way to $15/hr? I'm sure they're getting a large bonus... Oh wait, they're losing their earned stock options and will need to buy stock from now on... How is this good for the workers who actually earned their $15+/hr?

Re:Hard Workers?

[GameboyRMH]

That's right, what about the crabs that have spent a long time getting near the lip of the bucket? Are they gonna let those other crabs that just dropped in get to the lip of the bucket too? - said the fisherman.

Re:This will spur inflation

[jellomizer]

Historically minimum wage changes has small effect on inflation.
First there is a factor is someone gets paid more, they tend to work harder. So a business doesn't need to hire more employees to expand. As employees who are getting paid more, are in less stress of their finances. So a lot of the costs are balanced by efficiency.
Second being minimum wage, you do not have a lot of buying power. For the most part the extra wages goes into things that you should have, but have been putting off. Oil change to your car (if they have one), Paying Rent on time, healthier food, medicine and healthcare. A lot of this is currently being paid by government services, which would change to them buying it themselves.
Third Most people do not stay at minimum wage for too long. My first job in High School paid minimum wage, I got a raise after a month. Because I wasn't a slacker. Most companies if they find an employee they don't want to leave will pay more them minimum wage.
Forth, there is limit on the Trickle effect both trickle up and trickle down. Minimum wage increase is a trickle up. Which the lowest may get a 50% increase, then 25% increase for the next level (as to not have them at back down at minimum wage) then 12%, 6%, 3%, 1% then they stop. So Minimum wage will only increase anyone who is getting paid under $20 per hour.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Alain Williams]

A living wage is not the same as minimum wage, it is an idea that has been around in the UK for some time. What is the living wage depends on all sorts of things, one of which is where you live. London is the most expensive place in England at £10.20 (== $13.30), so Amazon's $15 is OK (which I found surprising).

Re:Fuck the Disabled

[radja]

no, it's the companies that don't want to pay that minimum wage that make people unemployable. Don't blame the decision of a company on anyone else.

Why would Amazon want to "lead" to $15?

[GregMmm]

Why lead and suggest other companies go to $15 for their minimum pay? At this time they will be paying a premium for workers. This is just good business. They will retain workers better, and attract better workers. Turns out if you pay more you get to pick from more applicants with better skills.

So why would you want your competition to meet the same pay? I suppose this is simply a political move. Looks good if you go first. Unfortunately, in the business world this will be forgotten by next Monday.

Not sure what the impact will be about the stock grants their losing. Maybe they will give a discounted stock purchase plan, which might compensate the lost income. Also, you don't need to hold the stock grants till they mature, usually like 4 years for all of the grant.

Re:Why would Amazon want to "lead" to $15?

[GameboyRMH]

Maybe Jeff Bezos used his long-term thinking to figure out that underpaying workers will starve the economy out in the medium/long term, since demand-side economics is real and supply-side economics is destructive nonsense, so to keep a population of Amazon shoppers around, he wants to raise wages across the board. I'm surprised a guy who prides himself on his long-term thinking didn't figure this out sooner.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Oswald McWeany]

$15 is probably fine most places in the US if you're only supporting yourself. I imagine in places like Bay area in California, or New York $15 is really hard to live on. Rural America $15 is easy to live on for 1 person if you don't have rich tastes.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[mpercy]

They're not doing it for any of those reasons. They're doing it so that that can say they did it for positive reasons while simultaneously asking government for force their competitors to do the same, especially if it hurts the competition way more than it hurts Amazon.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[ShanghaiBill]

No, its the threat of government intervention like the tax mentioned

There is little chance of government intervention, and ZERO chance of Bernie's idiotic tax on hiring poor people.

Ford and the Fed

[harvey the nerd]

The $15 wage floor is slightly reminescent of Henry Ford's "$5 day" policy, which bought Ford labor peace and productivity for a few years. Soon enough, others were able to match or exceed Ford's labor rates. Some of it was fueled by productivity and sales, but a lot of it represented more rapid expansion of M2 by banks and the Fed in the 1910s. Forbes on Ford's $5 day NPR

The frightening aspect is price inflation that has already occurred and will accompany a broader application like a $15 minimum wage. Such a tremendous rising wage is a symptom of expansion of credit and money.printing, courtesy of the Federal Reserve since 2008.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[bkmoore]

$5 for an eight hour shift in 1914 dollars would be $123.26 in 2018. $15 times 8 hours is $120. Ford in 1914 paid better than Amazon in 2018.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[gtall]

Not only the Fed, Congress and our alleged Presidents went along with massive reductions in tax receipts and massive increases in spending. Inflation will really bite because to tame it will require the Fed raise interest rates. In a year or so, the U.S. will spend more every year on servicing its debt than it spends on the military.

Now, let us all bow our heads in remembrance of those solemn vows Republicans gave us that the tax cut will pay for itself in the hopes we fail to notice the deficit going to over a Trillion dollars every year. Remember also that Trump once claimed he was the kind of debt. Also remember that he destroys all that he touches.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[dunkelfalke]

They had 10-11 hour shifts back then.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[harvey the nerd]

Ford had 9 hour shifts, but I would tend to agree Ford was much better relative to other workers in 1914, never mind the multiple CPI series, politicized stats.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[bkmoore]

They had 10-11 hour shifts back then.

The standard shift was nine hours in 1914 and probably included a break at some point. Originally the daily wage was $2.50 for a nine hour shift. Ford had to hire 52,000 men (there were no women back then) to maintain a staffing level of 14,000 in the production plant. The high rate of turnover was causing very serious production problems and costing Ford a lot more money than doubling the wages would. Ford doubled the wage to $5, reduced turnover and saved a lot of money.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[Muros]

A different way to calculate the value of $5 in 1915 would be to compare it to house prices. A 48 week year of 5 days a week at $5 would net you $1200, and house prices were ~$3200. So Ford paid around 37.5% the median house price per year. Current median US house price is roughly $200k, so if Bezos wants to deserve a comparison to Ford he needs to up wages to about $39 an hour.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[ShanghaiBill]

The median house in America today is more than twice the size it was in 1914. If you calculate by square foot of housing, wages today are about the same.

But housing prices have climbed faster than general inflation for most of the last century, so it is not a good benchmark for comparing wages.

Re: Ford and the Fed

[datavirtue]

Wait until people get thier check and realize nothing changes about thier life. Going from $10 to $15 is sort of a big deal...for a month.

Re: Ford and the Fed

[datavirtue]

Well something will change...they will lose thier food stamps.

Re: Ford and the Fed

[datavirtue]

Controlling spending comes from controlling lending. The powers that be are the powers that be because they lend the money.

You always see long diatribes about economic dominos that start with good times. I realized that excessive lending/borrowing in the good times is always the cause of problems in a downturn. Downturns are good, slight, and barely noticed unless big corporations and banks can't service thier debt....then shit hits the fan. Watch.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[Lost Race]

Current median US house price is roughly $200k, so if Bezos wants to deserve a comparison to Ford he needs to up wages to about $39 an hour.

In 1915, $5 would buy a quarter ounce of gold. To keep up with Ford, Bezos would have to pay ... 1/32 oz/hour ... $1200/oz ... $37.50 an hour. I'd say your math checks out!

Re:Ford and the Fed

[hackertourist]

House prices these days are based on two incomes per household, in 1915 that would have been 1 income/household. House prices have been climbing faster than inflation for a long time.

Re:Ford and the Fed

[Cederic]

Aren't you comparing skilled vs unskilled labour?

Re: Printing money causes inflation

[hunter44102]

Where will the money come from? From higher prices? Well higher prices for the same exact product is definitely inflation especially almost everyone NOT getting this kind of raise. And it really hurts those that were already making 15 doing a more skilled or more labor intensive job

Wow how much were they getting paid before?

[AnthonywC]

And apparently $15/hr is $31,200/year. A lot of cars on the road has MSRP more than that..

Re:Wow how much were they getting paid before?

[citylivin]

"And apparently $15/hr is $31,200/year. A lot of cars on the road has MSRP more than that.."

Obviously you are not poor. Poor people don't qualify for 31k loans. They buy $500 beaters. I've never paid more than 1k for a car and I am not even that poor.

The biggest scam in the world is new car sales. I would argue that anyone who pays more than a few thousand for a car is bad with their finances.

I worked for $8 an hour when i was just starting out 20 years ago and it was about 400 after tax bi-weekly (850 per month or so). You cant really afford gas and insurance for that much unless you live with your parents. A car loan would be completely out of the question.

Re:Wow how much were they getting paid before?

[GameboyRMH]

We should thank the people who buy new cars and take a bath in depreciation so that the rest of us can buy affordable used cars. They provide an important service.

Re:Yeah, so AI Will Take Over

[mpercy]

I don't think it will be all that slowly. Expect to see more and more pick&pack robots at Amazon real soon now.

Re:Fuck the Disabled

[cordovaCon83]

Do you not have vocational rehabilitation services in your state? I'm sorry to hear that your sisters have been displaced in this economy.

Prices only really rise

[rsilvergun]

in response to wage gains if there aren't matching productivity gains. We've doubled productivity in the last 20 years while wages remained the same or went down. There is a _lot_ of room for wage growth and better standards of living in America.

If I may rant a bit here, I do wish we could get rid of this pernicious lie that raising wages is pointless because it just means prices will go up. It's so obviously wrong on the face of it. If such a thing were true we'd never have gotten out of the gilded age.

Re:Prices only really rise

[TheSync]

"We've doubled productivity in the last 20 years while wages remained the same or went down. "

Average non-farm real output of workers per hour has risen by 50% over the least 20 years.

Average non-farm real total compensation of workers per hour has risen by 20% over the last 20 years.

The question, though, is what is the distribution of those two items. Has the rise in average productivity been driven by the productivity of a few, high-earning non-average workers, or has productivity risen for all workers? Also, what portion of productivity increase has come from capital investment in equipment as opposed to improved labor skills?

These are US numbers as well. It is possible that US productivity increases may be due to improvements in labor and capital in countries like China (where labor has seen tremendous wage increases) which provide inputs into US companies.

Re:Prices only really rise

[JackieBrown]

You realize that our productivity rises are do to technological advances, not actually people working 50% harder.

Re:Prices only really rise

[TheSync]

You realize that our productivity rises are do to technological advances, not actually people working 50% harder.

Indeed, productivity can rise from capital investments (such as machinery & automation), labor human capital improvement (going to chef school to learn how to cook more efficiently), management human capital improvement (learn how to more effectively run a business), and government/regulatory improvements (more efficient permitting process, reducing time to clear customs, etc.).

That's the trouble with the American economy

[rsilvergun]

it's workers can't afford the goods they're making. An entry level 4 door sedan that's not a death mobile like the Sentra retails for $17k. I've got a 4 year old one and they're kind of junky on the inside but they do well in crashes (which the Versa does not). That's $300/mo (after taxes and the like) + $100 for insurance (more if you've had an accident recently). Plus at $15/hr you need to come up with 1.75 month's pay for a downpayment.

Yeah, you can buy used, but the price of used cars keeps going up since nobody can afford new.

Re: Printing money causes inflation

[Anonymous Coward]

How rich. Obama FIXED the mess left by georgy and his private wars. What donny is doing is messing up the entire economy, but go ahead. Hope you like eating dirt.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Riceballsan]

did I miss the part where amazon is lobbying or speaking in favor of bernie's law? He started out more or less trashing the law, and yeah I'll admit Bernie didn't exactly open with a "lets have a friendly conversation" dialogue when his rhetoric more or less started at a "Bozo's is the ritchest guy in the world, and half his employees are on food stamps"

Re:MAGA!

[scrout]

Oh FFS, no one trusted Obama at all, and basically held on to their money and invested as little as possible because the risk was high with the Obomber in charge. Jesus man.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[ShanghaiBill]

How much money you need also depends on how many kids you have, and if you are a sole breadwinner for your household.

Should employers be required to pay more to people with more kids?

What if an employee breaks up with his girlfriend, and she moves out, taking her income with her? Now he needs more money to pay rent. Should he get an automatic raise?

Re:Fuck the Disabled

[shaitand]

There is nothing about down syndrome that prevents them from learning skills.

Re:Fuck the Disabled

[shaitand]

Neither this nor Bernie Sanders proposed Bill are a raise to the minimum wage. So how is your comment relevant?

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Opportunist]

Who goes back a century and tells Henry Ford that he's a Commie?

Re:A living wage for workers?

[mpercy]

WSJ reported today that "Amazon, which has faced criticism about pay and benefits, said it would raise the minimum wage for all U.S. workers. The company will also start lobbying Congress for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 an hour"

Might not be mentioned in the original summary or article.

Re:This will spur inflation

[Opportunist]

I hear this myth every time, yet strangely it never happens. Maybe because there's exactly no reason why it should?

We, in our post-industrial, service based economy, are a, well, service economy. Depending on the area you're in, 60 to 80 percent of all jobs are services. In other words, jobs that depend mostly on workforce and less on natural or industrial resources. Now, inflation is driven by a surplus of money compared to goods and services offered, with a shortage of supply and an increased demand due to a surplus of money, inflation would rise. But what happens in an economy with a surplus of money, a supply that is mainly dependent on workforce AND unemployed people?

I'm sure you're smart enough to figure that one out yourself.

But as a hint: As soon as we have a shortage of workforce, I agree with you. Until then, please, go troll somewhere else.

Re:This will spur inflation

[MrKaos]

trickle up and trickle down

Any additional income paid to people will simply be spent. I think this was researched in Texas where they found pay rises generate a lot of economic activity.

Paying people more money is a way to get more money into circulation instead of it sitting inside a bank account doing nothing.

300 years ago they didn't have food stamps

[rsilvergun]

I'm not saying we should have to pay to keep Amazon's employees fed, but it's better than the alternatives.

Still, this is great news. The public shaming (mostly from Bernie Sanders) worked. It worked for Disney too.

Re: 300 years ago they didn't have food stamps

[datavirtue]

This is win, win, win for Amazon. They will get higher productivity, get people off their back, and make it really difficult for their competition going into the holidays. They are going to fucking clean up on this.

Re:300 years ago they didn't have food stamps

[zlives]

yes, just a threat of one worked this time.

Re: 300 years ago they didn't have food stamps

[pintpusher]

Hiring temp labor during the holiday season will be hard for anyone who doesn't meet or beat Amazon's minimum wage.

Re:How many $15/hr workers...

[FormOfActionBanana]

That's nothing. They are not getting their AMZN stock anymore.

As long as productivity is going up

[rsilvergun]

price inflation isn't an issue. And productivity has doubled in the last 20 years and continues to climb (thanks to computers, better software and automation).

If anything we need shorter work weeks and higher pay to absorb job losses due to increased productivity. At my job it's been the same 3 man team for 15 years (with folks coming and going here and there) and our user base continues to increase. We haven't had to hire more because the software keeps improving so there's less to break, keeping the amount of work pretty consistent even as the number of users we support climbs.

Re:As long as productivity is going up

[ShanghaiBill]

And productivity has doubled in the last 20 years

In America, productivity has gone up about 30% in the last 20 years.

... and continues to climb

In America, productivity growth has been mostly stagnant since 2004.

If anything we need shorter work weeks and higher pay to absorb job losses due to increased productivity.

There is little historical evidence that increased productivity causes job losses. There is much more evidence for the opposite, and productivity improvements are more often than not correlated with rising labor force participation rates.

As workers become more productive, it is more profitable to employ them, so demand for labor goes UP, not down.

Countries with low productivity growth tend to have higher unemployment.

Predictions of job losses from productivity improvements are usually based on the zero-sum Lump of Labor Fallacy.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

The tax is a penalty for hiring crappy workers.

What they choose isn't relevant, basically never is. They made all their choices that mattered in middle and high school.

Re:Yeah, so AI Will Take Over

[Opportunist]

Good.

Slavery and cheap labor have always been anathema to progress and technological advancement.

Re:MAGA!

[Drethon]

at best trump is riding Obama's coattails after Obama fixed the mess bush left. And all indications are trump is screwing the economy up overheating it with money supply. His bad decisions take a while to catch up.

Just curious, how is Trump providing too much money supply? From my minimal understanding of economics, the fed is more in control of the money supply via their interest rate. If Trump has no political control over them, as I believe the fed has claimed, he is not the one controlling the money supply.

Re:This will spur inflation

[jeff4747]

As wages go up, you will see inflation pick up as well (natural consequence) and as a result the stock market will plummet.

Ok, so what's the downside?

Re:This will spur inflation

[HornWumpus]

Hint: We have a shortage of capable workers today. To the point that people that can barely fog a mirror think they're worth $15/hour.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[bkmoore]

$15 is probably fine most places in the US if you're only supporting yourself. I imagine in places like Bay area in California, or New York $15 is really hard to live on. Rural America $15 is easy to live on for 1 person if you don't have rich tastes.

The only major difference between and major metro area and any rural area is the cost of housing. Wages are lower in rural areas because most employers hold a jobs monopoly and the only way to get a pay raise is to quit and move to another region. Most cannot afford to move, so stay put and wages stagnate. I suspect Amazon cannot find workers in Seattle at $15 per hour. If Amazon goes to a rural area, their only real competition is probably Wallmart, which pays $11 per hour minimum plus health care benefits. Most Wallmart employees earn more than $11, so $15 is probably barely enough to get some workers in the door.

Re:MAGA!

[DNS-and-BIND]

You mean Trump is doing so well that Obama has to take credit for his accomplishments?

Re:Printing money causes inflation

[bkmoore]

Obama, does not tell the Fed how much money to print. I'll take a page from the Tea Party 2011 playbook and mention that Trump and the Republicans have been in control of all three branches of government for almost two years now. It's time to stop blaming the last President for everything.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[CanHasDIY]

In the US, it literally refers to the "minimum living wage"

What would a minimum wage be, if not the least wage that a person could survive upon?

Um, it's $16/hour in Seattle

[WillAffleckUW]

Talk about being behind the curve, Amazon.

Re:Um, it's $16/hour in Seattle

[Nethead]

That's why Amazon pays six figures in Seattle.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

You mean at an age where we don't believe they are mature enough to vote, make decisions about cigarettes and alcohol, or enter into binding contracts?

What's next from you? Making people carry through with what they said they wanted to be when they were four years old?

What of people who were doing everything "right" who got derailed by circumstances beyond their control? Or does that not exist in your odd little world?

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

Yes, so outrageously expensive that Amazon is voluntarily increasing wages to match the goal.

But since you seem content to use your tax dollars to supplement inadequate pay, why not just finish the job and implement the basic income?

Re: A living wage for workers?

[datavirtue]

Really? I didn't get off my ass until I was about 33. Basically dicked off and did drugs the whole time. I did apply myself to studying software engineering and data engineering but I only did what I wanted to do. I'm now in the top 11MM people as far as income in the US.

Re: A living wage for workers?

[datavirtue]

This is going to clobber thier retail competition during the holidays. This is enough to put a lot of them out of business. They are fucked.

Re:This will spur inflation

[butchersong]

Even progressive economists acknowledge that raising the minimum wage has an inflationary effect. I've not heard a serious discussion that this isn't the case. The pro arguments I have heard have always been that the effect is relatively small compared to the gain. I don't really disagree. Cheap goods are a rationale for a lot of bad practices walmart crap goods etc.

Re:This will spur inflation

[sjames]

If you were offered less than it costs to continue existing, you might not be willing to do much more than fog a mirror either.

Kinda like at one time, slaves were claimed to be universally lazy. It couldn't possibly have had anything to do with not being paid, no no no.

Re: This will spur inflation

[datavirtue]

Agreed. The likely outcome looks something like people paying thier rent on time and being able to afford a pizza. This will mean less stress and an elevated sense of themselves.

We listened to our critics AKA the Market

[guruevi]

Over the last 12-18 months, finding people to work a bit above minimum wage (due to the fact that we receive federal aid for those jobs, we can't post them any higher) has been increasingly difficult. We recently posted one for basic grunt work and got only 3 applicants and I keep passing McDonalds locations that have signs up at $15-18/h for shift managers.

Economic growth is exploding, the lowest unemployment in decades drives wages up. NYS is increasing minimum wages to $11.15 next year but nobody even wants to work at those rates anymore.

Re: This will spur inflation

[datavirtue]

Everyone is worth $15 a hour. If we could only convince them of the same truth they might actually be productive. People are lazy and unproductive when they don't think much of themselves.

Re: This will spur inflation

[datavirtue]

Just outlaw bonds. Problem fixed.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[ShanghaiBill]

What of people who were doing everything "right" who got derailed by circumstances beyond their control?

An obvious way to help these people is to make it EASIER for employers to hire them and give them a chance to turn their lives around. For instance, the EITC is an effective program that has helped millions of people earn enough to support their families.

But Bernie's poverty tax does the exact opposite. It penalizes companies for hiring the people most in need of a job. It is an insanely stupid proposal, and I can't believe that anyone takes it seriously.

It is a myth that "low pay" is a significant cause of poverty. The real problem is NO PAY. Only 9 percent of adults living below the poverty line work full time.

If Amazon hires a poor single mother, it is idiotic to say that somehow Amazon "caused" her to be poor. The truth is, that by giving her a job, they are helping her take the first step out of poverty. Punishing them for doing so makes no sense.

Poverty is a difficult societal problem, and we should all bear the cost of alleviating it. Dumping the cost onto the companies that are providing much needed entry level jobs, and thus disincentivizing them from doing so, is counter-productive.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

Sure they can get into a Jr college. But unless they've changed it's a waste of time and money.

Do you really expect them to 'get it' on their third or fourth attempt at learning algebra? Especially when the real problem is they can't even add fractions or use a tape measure?

Re: then lobby to increase min wage to kill main s

[datavirtue]

Main street was not ripping anyone off. They lacked efficiency which Amazon has.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

Better luck next reincarnation!

People's traits are 99% 'cooked in' by the time they are 18. Nothing anybody can do about it. 'Wish into one hand...'

Re: A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

Your pretending to not know any 'air thieves'.

American 'unemployables' are basically illiterate, certainly innumerate, entitled and lazy as all fuck. Also chronic fuckups.

Re:This will spur inflation

[HornWumpus]

You supposed to have learned something useful while still a kid. If your hiring on the cheap, the best you can do is a kid that won't be there for long. The adults available to you are just useless.

Not all jobs are intended to support independent people with families. That is the fundamental lie told by the 'living wage' morons.

It's true that slaves were _lousy_ workers, but don't tell the libs who claim 'slaves built America'. They will call you a Nazi.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

So basic income it is. Easier to administer and actually closes the gap. It also avoids rewarding employers for paying less than the work is worth and expecting the rest of society to pay enough to keep their workers from dropping dead.

Or were you thinking of lowering the minimum wage to a penny because surely working 80 hours a week for a cheeseburger will help get people out of poverty.

Re: This will spur inflation

[HornWumpus]

People learn to be productive over years, everybody productive has 'paid dues'. A 30 year old 'air thief' is beyond help, years of bad habits are ingrained.

Most lazy and unproductive people have quite good 'self images', part of the problem is they think they're above working.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[losfromla]

I did, Jr College and "got" algebra on my, probably third attempt. Then went on and got a Masters in Mechanical Engineering at the second of the UC's and now work as an engineer in aerospace. So, yeah, some of us dick around for a while then straighten up.

So, to sum it up... fuck you HornWumpus you irrelevant, arrogant, inhumane dickwad.

Re:This will spur inflation

[sjames]

You seem to be pointedly missing it. The slaves were lousy workers because the pay was lousy (zero).

If you got paid nothing, I'll bet you would do the bare minimum to not get whipped too.

You'd also probably desert at your first opportunity. Imagine that.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[losfromla]

You're saying that being poor is more a result of societal factors than personal ones, also that upward mobility is extremely poor in the US. Isn't that a horrible indictment on our society and our nation? Shouldn't the realization of that unfairness increase rather than decrease your compassion and understanding of the plight of the poor?

Propped up by AWS?

[eth1]

The cynic in me wonders whether Amazon is really doing this due to the huge amount of higher-margin revenue they get from AWS that other retailers don't have. They might be able to absorb the cost without raising prices, while if they can get the min wage raised, it would really put the squeeze on other retailers. Maybe causing them to have to raise prices, which would drive more customers to Amazon, and help drive competition out of business.

Re:Propped up by AWS?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's not "other retailers" as a vague threat. WalMart is stepping up their game online, and is starting to appear as a real threat (I've started comparison shopping between the two, for instance.) Raising the minimum wage to $15/hr affects 17,000 full time Amazon employees, but more than 100x for WalMart, at least 1,700,000

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Hognoxious]

What would a minimum wage be, if not the least wage that a person could survive upon?

Well it could be the least that employers can get away with.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

Moron. Cooked in at 18 is not 'inherently'. They fucked up, now they are _screwed_.

Young minds learn better, waste that time window and you are screwed. But you know that, just look at your life.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[ShanghaiBill]

So basic income it is. Easier to administer and actually closes the gap.

There is no plausible proposal for basic income that "closes the gap" and provides a living income to everyone. They only proposals that come close do so by eliminating social security, which is politically infeasible and deeply unfair to the people that paid into the system for a lifetime, and by raiding medicare, which ignores the fact that medical expenses are not evenly spread.

Or were you thinking of lowering the minimum wage to a penny

Markets don't work that way. Nobody would accept a job for a penny, because someone else would offer more. Employers can't just arbitrarily set wages.

Only 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage. For the other 98%, even the current minimum wage isn't enough.

Denmark, Sweden, and Norway have no legal minimum wage. Number of Scandinavians earning a penny per hour: 0.

Minimum wages by country

Re:This will spur inflation

[HornWumpus]

I'm not disputing that slaves are lousy workers. Just telling you that saying it will get you called a Nazi, by people like you.

Your supposed to believe that 'slaves built America'. Get with the program.

In days of yore

[Hognoxious]

You supposed to have learned something useful while still a kid.

Like the difference between "you" and "you're"?

If your hiring on the cheap

Or the difference between "you're" and "your"?

Re:In days of yore

[HornWumpus]

I can afford a proofreader for those times it matters.

Grammarians are useless.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[ShanghaiBill]

You're saying that being poor is more a result of societal factors than personal ones, also that upward mobility is extremely poor in the US.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Are you disagreeing?

Isn't that a horrible indictment on our society and our nation?

Yes. Absolutely.

Shouldn't the realization of that unfairness increase rather than decrease your compassion and understanding of the plight of the poor?

What??? How does saying "We shouldn't punish companies for hiring poor people" indicate a lack of compassion?

Bernie's proposed tax on poverty will disincentivize companies from hiring poor people, incentivize them to locate jobs in areas with fewer poor households, and raise the barriers to upward mobility. It is an idiotic proposal. But I don't think Bernie's supporters lack compassion, I just think they lack basic economic literacy.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a B.S. in physics and can't get a job at Starbucks or Trader Joe's. No drug use, ever. No criminal record. My AP high school diploma and my university diploma are useless. I am at the edge of suicide and cannot find employment.

They should do this in Germany too

[nospam007]

That would fuck up the Unions big time.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[HornWumpus]

Bullshit.

Your attitude is what leaves people unequipped for life. By telling that lie, you tell kids they can wait to start making an effort and it will 'all be fine'. The worst thing you could tell them.

It's biology, kids learn better than adults. If they haven't learned to learn by 18, the best they can do is some sort of 'certificate of attendance' degree, which are common enough, but worthless.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

So, insults rather than arguments. I guess you're saying that now that you're over 18 you are learning disables? So much so that even riding the short bus can't help you?

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

So your main upset is that they don't hurry up and die?

You might find that they are willing to violently oppose your nice plan for them.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

That's because they have other social programs that allow for people to demand a worthwhile wage.

Employers WILL arbitrarily lower wages when the unemployment rate is positive and the government pushes people to employment in order to get benefits.

For non-human worker units (aka machines) they either pay what it costs to keep them running or they do without. Why do we willingly subsidize the operating cost of human worker units? If they won't pay what it costs to keep a human alive and in good enough condition to work, why shouldn't they do without?

Re:This will spur inflation

[sjames]

I'm not disputing that slaves are lousy workers. Just telling you that saying it will get you called a Nazi, by people like you.

Why would people like me disagree with people like me? Logic fail.

Look closely at the people you imagine will call me a Nazi. Don't you see the straw coming out of their sleeves?

If you measure by manufacturing output

[rsilvergun]

you'll see the doubling. If you look at overall stats the service economy makes it hard to measure, leading to lower figures.

And we most certainly have had technology unemployment in the past. The Luddites weren't just overly conservative, they were losing their livelihoods. We produce twice as much with 2/3rds the workforce.

When there are new jobs they're low paying service sector jobs. But the trouble there is there's less money in the economy, so less money floating around and an overall slowdown in the economy. That's exactly what we're seeing if you take Wallstreet out of the picture. It's part of a broader trend taking us back to the gilded age of income inequality and aristocracy. Folks see it happening but don't know what to do...

Re:If you measure by manufacturing output

[ShanghaiBill]

the service economy makes it hard to measure

Productivity is easy to measure.

Productivity = GDP / (hours worked)

The Luddites weren't just overly conservative, they were losing their livelihoods.

But overall employment in the spinning/weaving business was going UP. It was only their particular skills that were declining in value.

When there are new jobs they're low paying service sector jobs.

That is a big problem.

But the trouble there is there's less money in the economy

Rising productivity means more goods and services produced per unit of labor. That does not lead to "less money".

... an overall slowdown in the economy.

The economy is currently booming, but the "slow" period from 2007 to 2014 coincided with a DECLINE in productivity growth. This is the opposite of what you are claiming.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[GameboyRMH]

Holy shit you're a cosmically evil hyper-misanthrope. This is the kind of utterly inhuman shortsighted capitalist-utilitarian cruelty I'm afraid AI will empower.

Re:This will spur inflation

[GameboyRMH]

False dichotomy.

To hurt Walmart

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This affects 17,000 full time employees of Amazon, and 20,000 seasonal workers (so, ~10% of their employees). Meanwhile, WalMart is starting to step up their game and compete. WalMart has 7 times as many employees and a much higher percentage of them are below $15/hr. This is designed to hurt them.

Also, with the stock doubling over the last year, I'm sure they're scared of the cost of options.

Does it count as capitalism

[rsilvergun]

when it was a Democratic Senator (Bernie Sanders) who's campaigning got them to relent? Also, there's a good chance this was done to take the wind out of the sales of that law Bernie was pushing to tax corporations an equal amount of money for the government aid their employees receive. Those temp workers often still rely on gov't healthcare (esp in California). That's half the reason to hire temps (the other half to avoid paying unemployment).

I think this has less to do with capitalism and more to do with pressure coming from the government. It's kind of like how the game industry made a ratings board so the gov't wouldn't force them to do it. If you don't fix your shit the gov't will fix it for you, and they'll be a lot more thorough when they fix it than you would.

Re:This will spur inflation

[MrKaos]

Same thing that happens when you lower taxes.. The additional money is spent and generates may times its value in economic activity.

However that only applies if the money is spent. If the money is horded into investments then it does not get circulated in the economy.

Ripple Effect?

[Namlak]

I just wonder how this works in practice. I know that if people in lesser jobs than mine started making the same as me, I'd have an issue.

Are the people who were making $15 before this going to demand $20 because people in lesser jobs are making the same as them now?

And then the $20/hr people demand $25...

And the $30/hr people demand $40...

And on and on... ???

Re:This will spur inflation

[Opportunist]

Pay peanuts and you get chimps. And frankly, if you only paid me 15 bucks an hour, I would leave my brain at home, too. If you want me to do something, pay me. If you don't pay me, don't expect more work to be done than is absolutely minimally necessary to not get fired, and even that only insofar as finding another job (which also pays shit) is down the road.

Supply and demand, baby.

Re:This will spur inflation

[Opportunist]

Odd. I actually hear this "sky-is-falling" doomsaying only from people who fear that if more people can afford it, the stuff they want to buy gets more expensive. Never from someone with some kind of background in those matters.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Opportunist]

Ford was an asshole, no doubt. He sure as fuck didn't pay more than minimum wage because he was such a sweet, lovable guy that he wanted people to be happy. He wanted workers that can afford his own products that wanted to stay in his factory SO badly that they put up with everything, from insane working hours to zero privacy.

He realized, though, that it IS possible to motivate people with money. Easily so, even. And that it's even cheaper in the long run to pay your workers more because that means that they'll bend over backwards to keep that job.

Amazon will pay

[Holdinn]

Starting on November 1st, Amazon will pay all its US employees a minimum wage of $15 an hour in a move the e-commerce giant expects will impact more than 250,000 full- and part-time employees and 100,000 seasonal workers. Amazon has also said that it will be lobbying for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which is currently set at $7.25 an hour.

Inflation

[Wizardess]

This is the start of another round of inflation. Next some folks say, "My Amazon costs me more. Therefore I need a raise.' Then we have more saying "Now my everything costs more so I, too, need a raise."

And people on fixed incomes cope how? Thanks assholes.
{O,O}

Re: A living wage for workers?

[Uberbah]

If your business can't pay a living wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Talderas]

Amazon is raising wages for one of three reasons.

1. They're attempting to stave off anything that could upset their end goal of near 100% warehouse automation. They accept the higher costs now because they are fairly confident that in a few years many of these workers will likely be automated away.
2. They believe that higher wages and possible good will PR is worth more profit than lower wages and possible bad good will PR.
3. Going into the holiday season they're hoping to make it more difficult for competitors to hirer temp workers and consequently are looking at it as a way to gain an even larger online market share.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

I'm absolutely Amazon is doing this because they believe it is good for Amazon. They are, after all, a large corporation.

All I'm saying is that the fact that they're doing it shows that it is doable.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Talderas]

Amazon's annual net income is a little under $8bn iirc.

I'm just going to make some assumptions... the 250k regular employees are 40hr employees and the 150k seasonal employees are equivalent to 1/12th of a full time employee (12500). Splitting $8bn profit 262,500 ways is roughly $30.5k per employee per year. $30.5k per employee per year (revenue) divided by 2080 hours (40hrs per week) works out to $14.65/hr. That's the theoretical upper limit, ignoring other costs like payroll taxes or overtime, on how much Amazon could raise wages by without running losses every quarter. What are these employees currently paid? $10/hr? That's effectively cutting Amazon's profit by a third. Federal minimum wage? They're cutting Amazon's profit in half. Even raising wages by just $1 increases annual payroll by half a billion and that's assuming those 150k seasonal workers are working 20hr weeks for 8 weeks. These are not insignificant knocks to profitability and it almost certainly means that Amazon has some strategic plans in place that are going to eliminate this cost or increase revenue in the next five years or so.

Combine this with their desire to campaign for increasing the Federal minimum wage to $15/hr and it's highly probable they are aiming for a goal of significant automation (cutting labor force) in combination with running competitors out of business by making their labor costs too burdensome to be profitable.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

You're confusing profit and revenue. Profit is what you have left after you pay for everything you needed to bring in your revenue. So that 8 billion isn't being divided among the employees, it's being divided among the stock holders (minus what they keep aside for later).

The exception is Hollywood. In Hollywood, every movie takes a loss for tax and profit-sharing purposes.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Uberbah]

Bernie's idiotic tax on hiring poor people

That's an impressively batshit crazy framing of the issue. Are you and your friends going to hold a tearful service, complete with burning candles below a picture of St. Rand....because....less of your tax money will be subsidizing a trillion dollar company??? Amazon paying $15 an hour means less people on food stamps and Medicaid, slick.

Poverty is strongly correlated with how much money your daddy had, same as it does for the rich

FTFY. People "choose" to be poor like you "chose" not to own your favorite sports team and be a tech billionaire before you turned 25.

An obvious way to help these people is to make it EASIER for employers to hire them and give them a chance to turn their lives around.

Companies will hire the minimum number of workers needed to produce the maximum results. How "easy" that is is as irrelevant to that equation as high corporate tax rates are.

But Bernie's poverty tax does the exact opposite. It penalizes companies for hiring the people most in need of a job.

Aside from the service, the tears and the candles, maybe you could start a GoFundMe for Bezos, because having a larger net worth than dozens of countries just isn't enough. Were you the inspiration for that South Park scene where we're all supposed to cry for the rich because they had to settle for a Gulfstream III instead of a Gulfstream IV for their private jet? Or maybe the fundraiser for Kylie Jenner, to hurry up and be the youngest billionaire before she turns 22.

It is a myth that "low pay" is a significant cause of poverty.

The fact that someone can work full time and be below the poverty line makes a bad liar out of you.

There is no plausible proposal for basic income that "closes the gap" and provides a living income to everyone. They only proposals that come close do so by eliminating social security, which is politically infeasible and deeply unfair to the people that paid into the system for a lifetime, and by raiding medicare, which ignores the fact that medical expenses are not evenly spread.

Mark Hamill called, and said every word in those sentences are false.

Markets don't work that way. Nobody would accept a job for a penny

Unpaid interns are fascinated by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Talderas]

I am quite aware of the different between profit and revenue and costs. You appear to be missing that raising costs necessarily lowers profit unless you offset those costs. No company should be borrowing money to make payroll, so while you are technically correct that the raise doesn't come from profits, the current profit serves as a reasonable absolute upper limit by the fact that the company will probably need to be profitable in order to reasonably drive innovation and growth. Raising employee wages by $1/hr will cost the company roughly an additional $500m per year in direct payroll. However, raising wages by $1 typically turns into $1.50 so a $1/hr wage increase is closer to $750m in additional costs per year for Amazon. That will lower profit, since costs increased, unless that $750m is offset by other cost-cutting measures. Across the board, the average is probably closer to a $3/hr increase for most employees making the total increase in cost closer to $2.25bn or more than a quarter of their current annual profit.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.

They'll likely get some of that back in the form of reduced costs of employee turnover and improved productivity.

It's not nothing, but note that even if Bezos paid it personally, he would remain the richest man in the world.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[Talderas]

In that case, your post was a bit unclear. Not sure why you're assuming a 1$ raise would somehow cost $1.50 since the raise doesn't increase the overhead for employing someone. It would cost $1.07 due to matching SS contribution.

$0.50 is a figure I'm using based on what I have heard from payroll accountants. There's more than just social security that needs to be paid in. There's unemployment as well as other government mandated benefits. It's a fairly well researched topic but suffice it to say, each $1 of wages corresponds to roughly at least $0.40 of additional costs for that employee and it can go higher. If you want to read up on it you can view this Pew link.

Re:A living wage for workers?

[sjames]

Those figures are an average that includes some fixed costs that exist regardless of the amount the employee is paid. I don't dispute that those costs exist, only that they scale with pay.