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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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].

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.

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: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.

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.

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: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

[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: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]

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: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!