Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government United States

Amazon To Add 100,000 Full-Time US Jobs in Next 18 Months (geekwire.com) 186

An anonymous reader shares a GeekWire report: Amazon just made a big statement about its continued growth aspirations, announcing that it plans to add another 100,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. over the next 18 months, an increase of more than 55 percent in its domestic workforce. The growth would push Amazon's U.S. workforce to more than 280,000 people by mid 2018. Amazon said in an announcement that the jobs will be available to people "all across the country and with all types of experience, education and skill levels -- from engineers and software developers to those seeking entry-level positions and on-the-job training."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon To Add 100,000 Full-Time US Jobs in Next 18 Months

Comments Filter:
  • by Charcharodon ( 611187 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:27PM (#53655549)
    Cool, but Amazon is simply cannibalizing the retail sector. That 100,000 jobs probably represents 1/3 (or more) of the total retail sector jobs that will be lost as Amazon pushes out less efficient players in the market. I'm all for it, I love Amazon, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking this is something that is going to be happy for the "fight for $15" crowd in the country. (They will be unemployed).
    • by imgod2u ( 812837 )

      They've added approximately 150k jobs over the past 4 years. So this is quite an acceleration.

    • This is just the same as Romney and his claims of creating jobs through Staples. Yes, Staples created many jobs, but at the cost of many other jobs (probably more) at small stationery shops.
      • Yes, Staples created many jobs, but at the cost of many other jobs (probably more) at small stationery shops.

        No. This is the "broken window fallacy". Unproductive work is not "good for the economy" and does not create jobs. Staples drove those other shops out of business because of greater efficiency and lower prices. But if the customers are now spending less on office supplies, then they are spending more on OTHER THINGS, and more people are employed producing those other goods and services. Those other jobs are diffused through the economy, so they are not visible, but they are still real jobs, and Staples

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      In this case it is not the retail sector but the logistics sector. Basically product storage, handling, picking and delivery. They'll be cannibalising jobs from all other industries and due to the poor labour practices, they will be turning good jobs into bad jobs.

  • You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.

    • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:36PM (#53655619) Journal

      You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.

      But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.

      • But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.

        Will he take responsibility for the 10,000+ layoffs after encouraging supporters to boycott Macy's?

        http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/trump-supporters-celebrate-macy-s-job-cuts/307381/ [adage.com]

        • Macy's was dying long before that joke of a boycott.

          If you believe the boycott had impacted Macy's sales severely enough to blame the loss of jobs on the boycott, then would you not also blame Macy's for not changing course in response? They had well over a year to do so.

          Further, why would Trump take responsibility for the lost jobs? Trump wanted to sell his products in Macy's. Macy's was the one that removed the products. Trump asking for a boycott only makes him "responsible" for the shit he himself a

      • You can rest assured that this is one company that wont credit Trump in any way for these jobs.

        But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how he rolls.

        I'm not sure why this matters.

        Adding 100,000 domestic workers in the US seems like it's a good thing. It even seems quite likely that many (if not all) of these jobs could have been outsourced or performed in a foreign office, and Amazon itself says that these are "across the board" jobs, and not simply seasonal or fulfilment slave-labor.

        And you should also admit that Trump is largely the source of the "hire local" climate, he's caused companies to rethink their outsourcing plans, especially in light of the

        • Why should credit even matter?

          Trump takes credit for everything that makes him look good even though he had nothing to do with it. He will constantly remind people that he is so awesome that he refers to himself in the third-person (i.e., "If Putin likes Donald Trump — guess what, folks, that's called an asset, not a liability."). It's going to be a long four years.

          • Why should credit even matter?

            Trump takes credit for everything that makes him look good even though he had nothing to do with it. He will constantly remind people that he is so awesome that he refers to himself in the third-person (i.e., "If Putin likes Donald Trump — guess what, folks, that's called an asset, not a liability."). It's going to be a long four years.

            And that's important?

            I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.

            I think you're focusing on the wrong goals.

            And additionally, you're imagining a fantasy situation just so you can complain how bad that fantasy situation is.

            But hey, fantasy simulation seems like it'll be the next big thing in VR.

            Knock yourself out.

            • And that's important?

              It is for the media that gave Trump $2B+ in free advertising during the election.

              I think what's important is the reality, not the spin.

              Tell the media.

              The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.

              Are these good paying middle class jobs that Trump promised to bring back to America? I doubt it.

              I think you're focusing on the wrong goals.

              Tell the media.

              And additionally, you're imagining a fantasy situation just so you can complain how bad that fantasy situation is.

              Tell the media.

              But hey, fantasy simulation seems like it'll be the next big thing in VR.

              I'll pass. I'm sure someone will get a kick out of Trump's Golden Showers VR.

              http://www.thewrap.com/social-media-jokes-trump-golden-showers/ [thewrap.com]

              Knock yourself out.

              Tell the media.

              • I'm glad now you watch Fox only because all the media news channels I see are constantly bashing him. Every time I walk into the break room I seen another banner-line criticizing something Trump did - best was his dating life in the 70s.

                • I'm glad now you watch Fox only because all the media news channels I see are constantly bashing him.

                  Sorry, I don't watch Fox News. I stopped watching TV 30 years ago.

            • I think what's important is the reality, not the spin. The important bit from the article is that we get 100,000 more jobs.

              It will probably be a net 10,000,000 job loss for the US. Amazon is substituting for less efficient stores, by having automated stores that should replace people at least 10 to 1, and likely as much as 100 to 1.

          • It's going to be a long four years.

            Bet he gets shot in his first year. A lot of people hate him and he's made an enemy of the intelligence services. I wouldn't be surprised if they accidentally don't see an angry ex military sniper one day.

            • Oh please. No. Just no. Let's not even think about that.

              Look, I don't like the guy. But wish death on him? That's just supremely uncool.

              He did suggest darkly that the "second-amendment people" might handle Hillary Clinton in some way. But for the love of FSM, just let that go. Let's not think that there are bull's-eyes on the people who represent us in public office.

              Puh-leeze.

              • I didn't state whether I wanted him shot or not. I merely stated, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he gets assassinated.

                Pence would probably be a worse president than Trump for a couple of reasons. He genuinely believes in his wacko ideas, this isn't just a pure "say anything to get power" thing for him like it was for Trump. As an ideologue, Pence would be more likely to get things done, he has motivation; things that would be bad for our economy and society. Trump has no diplomatic skill and the repu

                • I didn't state whether I wanted him shot or not. I merely stated, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he gets assassinated.

                  You're right. Sorry.

        • Because unfortunately, most people are wired to give more weight to a few standout examples rather than to the overall trend. e.g.
          • Planes are safer than cars, but many people are afraid of flying when they don't think twice about getting into a car.
          • People oppose nuclear power because of Fukushima and Chernobyl, when statistically it's the safest power source man has invented. (Yes, safer than solar and wind. They kill more people per unit of energy delivered. The only reason they don't kill many people
        • You have all been manipulated. Trump doesn't even have to say anything, you're all doing this conversation totally unprompted. It's like word association: Jobs... Trump! Playing right into his hands. Trump is truly a 3D chess master. Watching the media come apart at the seams, watching the Democrats crash and burn, and seeing the Republicans defy all odds and win the presidency... These are amazing times we live in and it seems like the Left is to thank for much of it.
      • But you can rest assured that Trump himself will try to claim some credit. That's just how any politician rolls.

        Corrected. Show me the politician that runs on a platform, gets elected, and then doesn't look for every possible opportunity to show how they are delivering on those promises. Which I guess is one of the few ways he's like every other politician.

      • This is how all administrations " roll ".
        Regardless if they had any hand in it whatsoever, if it happens during their tenure, then they'll take the credit or blame for it.

        For example, take the economy.

        If it tanks over the next four years, the Trump haters will have millions more joining their ranks.
        If it improves, a lot of folks may have a change of heart.

        It won't make any difference if Trump directly or indirectly does anything to reach those results.
        He will, however, either get the blame or the praise for

      • He doesn't even need to anymore. People are claiming it on his behalf! Read the comments. The mindshare is crazy and he's not yet in office.
  • Temps, staffing firms, 30 hour working 40-50? most of the time?, 40 hour working 50-60 most of the time? H1B's?

    What jobs are they talking about.

    • Many of the warehouse jobs are part-time and they hire tons of temps over the holiday season to avoid having to pay overtime to the part-timers. I spoke with a friend that works part-time in one of their warehouses and he said that he got fewer hours over the holiday season than last year because of the number of temps that they hired. So the number of workers will go up but the hours of the existing workers could potentially decline.
  • They forgot to add that after the 18 months are over, they'll invoke the elastic job scaling script:
    workforceSize.reduce(-100,000,'salary15.00')
  • Amazon will ship my order in one box instead of three or four boxes when I checked the box to group my order together? I usually don't go to my post office box unless I have a handful of packages coming in. Amazon splitting my order into multiple boxes multiplies the number of tracking numbers I can need to keep tabs on.
    • That's really more a consequence of Amazon's delivery contract with UPS. Apparently it's very generous (probably some sort of flat rate based on cumulative weight) so there's little incentive for Amazon to consolidate your orders into fewer boxes. UPS is the one who will have to put pressure on Amazon to reduce the number of boxes. And with Amazon branching out into its own delivery service, I don't see that happening.
      • That's really more a consequence of Amazon's delivery contract with UPS.

        No, it's a consequence of which fulfillment center has the stuff in stock. You don't really expect Amazon to ship a widget from their warehouse in Kentucky to a warehouse in California just so they put two widgets into one box, do you? And, of course, if one or more of the items aren't fulfilled by Amazon, you aren't going to get them all in one box no matter what.

        As for the nonsense that Amazon has little incentive to consolidate orders, that's just nuts. Being able to put everything in one box saves mone

        • You don't really expect Amazon to ship a widget from their warehouse in Kentucky to a warehouse in California just so they put two widgets into one box, do you?

          Based on my experience, yes. Otherwise, the order would ship immediately instead of waiting a few days or a week to get everything into a box. I had a recent order that got shipped immediately and an older order that got shipped a few days later.

          • Based on my experience, yes.

            That leads to a huge increase in logistics for them, and an increase in cost. Ship something twice so it can be delivered once? It certainly costs them a lot less to ship from two different places in two different boxes than to ship a total of three times.

            I had a recent order that got shipped immediately and an older order that got shipped a few days later.

            What do you think that proves? The recent order was in stock; the older order wasn't, probably. Or fulfilled from two different places.

            • That leads to a huge increase in logistics for them, and an increase in cost.

              I had replacement packages that got shipped Same Day Express across the country to be delivered at 9PM at night. That isn't cheap. After I had three packages stolen in one week, and three late night deliveries, I got a post office box for my packages.

              What do you think that proves? The recent order was in stock; the older order wasn't, probably. Or fulfilled from two different places.

              Amazon need to get their logistical shit together.

              • I had replacement packages that got shipped Same Day Express across the country to be delivered at 9PM at night. That isn't cheap.

                Replacing lost or stolen packages has nothing to do with how many packages they ship or from where. Amazon is NOT going to waste money shipping one item to another fulfillment center just so it can be put in the same box as something else you ordered. It doesn't matter if you want them to ship it all in one box, if the items are coming from two different places there will be two different boxes.

                If you have a problem with things being stolen from your front step, don't have them delivered to your front step

                • If you have a problem with things being stolen from your front step, don't have them delivered to your front step.

                  I got a post office box. That was two years before Amazon started shipping orders in multiple boxes.

                  They have it together.

                  Two orders delivered in eight boxes suggest that they don't have their shit together.

                  They understand their costs better than you do.

                  They must be squeezing their suppliers if they can afford to send an extra six boxes and packing materials for two orders.

                  • I got a post office box. That was two years before Amazon started shipping orders in multiple boxes.

                    Amazon has always shipped orders in multiple boxes when the circumstances warranted it. It has nothing to do with you getting a PO box.

                    Two orders delivered in eight boxes suggest that they don't have their shit together.

                    They didn't delivery two orders in eight boxes. They delivered the orders in a couple of boxes which got stolen, so they had to send them again. They can't predict when you're going to have things stolen, and they don't save money by sending everything you order to one central fulfillment center just so it gets to you in one box. And NOTHING they could have done would have m

                    • Your example is just ridiculous (and thus dishonest) since it conflates your complaint about not honoring a "minimize shipments" option on the original order with you having things delivered to an insecure location and they were stolen.

                      That's because you are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. Stolen packages from doorstep were two years ago, which was when I got my post office box and had packages delivered there. I had two RECENT ORDERS shipped in eight boxes. I went to the post office this morning to break down eight boxes and put 11 items into a canvas grocery bag. PITA!

  • Good, but... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:39PM (#53655651)

    My guess is that they're just extrapolating out an estimate of the number of people it will take to run their new in-house FedEx/UPS service and staff warehouses. Also, if I were a retailer, I'd be banking on trying to capitalize on Sears and Macy's likely bankruptcies in the next 18 months. Macy's might survive in a smaller form but I'm sure Sears is going to be parted out because it's being run by a hedge fund. I doubt technical jobs will be a double-digit percent of this amount -- it's going to be line-level grunts packing boxes, flying planes, driving delivery trucks, etc.

    I've also heard many stories about how Amazon is to work for in both technical and ground level positions. I don't think I'd want a tech position there, even though they're working on really cool stuff with AWS. Accounts from alumni I've heard describe it as a huge employer who's insanely tight-fisted and never grew up out of startup crunch mode. Their perfect employee is a fresh grad with no previous experience that will say nothing of working nights, weekends, etc. for low pay. I think the phrase "Seattle hundreds" was coined there initially. Add that to the pressure-cooker back stabbing culture I've heard described many times, and I think I'll pass!

    • I've also heard many stories about how Amazon is to work for in both technical and ground level positions. I don't think I'd want a tech position there, even though they're working on really cool stuff with AWS. Accounts from alumni I've heard describe it as a huge employer who's insanely tight-fisted and never grew up out of startup crunch mode. Their perfect employee is a fresh grad with no previous experience that will say nothing of working nights, weekends, etc. for low pay. I think the phrase "Seattle hundreds" was coined there initially. Add that to the pressure-cooker back stabbing culture I've heard described many times, and I think I'll pass!

      This matches what I've heard (although some parts are better than others), however, you must understand that most of their new hires tend to be fresh grads looking to get something on their resume and expect to use it to be gone in 18 months due to their own plans anyway.

  • WHOOPEE! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Thursday January 12, 2017 @03:40PM (#53655655) Homepage Journal
    Are these jobs:
    • 40 hours a week
    • have full healthcare
    • paid vacation
    • pension^W 401k matching
    • treatment with basic human respect

    ?

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

    • by Pascoea ( 968200 )

      Yeah, I didn't think so.

      I know it's par for the course around here, but it's right in the linked article.

      Amazon says the jobs will offer “highly-competitive pay, health insurance, disability insurance, retirement savings plans and company stock.”

    • have full healthcare
      paid vacation
      pension^W 401k matching

      Why not bring the US up to par with other 1st world countries so employees don't have to depend on the company to do that?

      I don't think "How are the vacation and health care policies" are questions most Europeans think of when they go to interview for a new job.

    • Did you say Pension ?

      Pensions are on the endangered species list last I checked. Only those who have been in the workforce for quite a while ( say 20+ ) years will be the ones who will still have a pension available to them.

      Even in my own company, which is a Fortune 500 flavor, pensions are being phased out.
      If you hired on after a certain date, you are no longer eligible for one. Better put some extra into your savings plan.

      Full healthcare benefits ( that are affordable ) are going to be another rarity in

  • Unless Amazon is really believing they will increase sales by 50% and that it will all be new sales instead of sales taken from other stores, this is just moving jobs from other companies, like UPS, and putting them at Amazon.

    This looks like a likely net job loss for the country due to increased efficiency of shipping and even more pressure on small businesses due to reducing the value of the immediacy of shopping down the street.

    If not for walmart, It could also be seen as leveraging their monopoly and unh

Never buy what you do not want because it is cheap; it will be dear to you. -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...