Many Amazon Warehouse Workers are on Food Stamps (theintercept.com) 423
Many of Amazon's warehouse workers have to buy their groceries with food stamps through America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, reports the Intercept.
In Arizona, new data suggests that one in three of the company's own employees depend on SNAP to put food on the table. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the figure appears to be around one in 10. Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table... "The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
In addition Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps, notes the article, adding that in 2017 Amazon received $1.2 billion in state and local subsidies, while effectively paying no federal income tax.
"The American people are financing Amazon's pursuit of an e-commerce monopoly every step of the way: first, with tax breaks, subsidies, and infrastructure improvements meant to lure fulfillment centers into town, and later with federal transfers to pay for warehouse workers' food."
Don't Be Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be silly. With all the hours they work, what Amazon Warehouse Worker has time to have a family of four?
Re: Don't Be Silly (Score:2)
They don't have to have SNAP, they just qualified. These workers accepted their wages, and we (the public) decided who qualifies for SNAP). If I could have qualified, I would have purchased groceries that way too, why not? I promise you if you remove the SNAP programs, food will still be purchased by them, and their next iPhone payment plan won't be for the most expensive version. Priorities, priorities, priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Our illustrious president says: just Amazon.
Re: Don't Be Silly (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you are trying to be funny or not.
I think that people can't be constantly outraged and can't follow the thousand and one companies being evil. I'm sure Monsanto is still evil. Goldman Sachs still ripping off the world through clever finance.
Walmart is still mostly evil, they just have a better competitor with Amazon eating away at their profits.
We can't allow people's hopes and dreams to be eaten away with this race to the bottom.
I found out my own kid had been giving away his food at lunch because other kids there didn't eat breakfast.
Maybe you have an OK job, but there are a lot of people who struggle and it means their kids don't play sports, their kids don't get piano lessons, there kids probably won't go to college, their kids won't get braces.
So it isn't Social Justice Warriors that are playing outrage of the week-- it's real people who want hope for the future.
So maybe you have to split your annoyance at SJW with the Politically correct and Amnesty International -- people whining about torture. There's so many annoying people; where to start?
Seize the means of production (Score:3, Insightful)
Guillotine the billionaires.
Re:Seize the means of production (Score:5, Insightful)
Means of production? This is about Amazon. At best you could claim means of distribution.
Re:Seize the means of production (Score:5, Insightful)
If you let them get away with underpaying employees to increase their own wealth
If people are willing to take the jobs, then Amazon is paying what the market will bear. If Amazon couldn't fill their positions, they'd have to offer higher salaries.
The fact that Amazon is successful is irrelevant. As a business owner, you would not call up your suppliers and say "We've had a really great year, so go ahead and charge us extra for everything we order!" Labor costs work exactly the same way: you pay what the market will bear.
Don't get me wrong, people do need to earn a living, but cherry-picking a few successful businesses and giving them the stink-finger for not paying decent wages isn't the solution.
Re:Seize the means of production (Score:5, Insightful)
The theory of "supply and demand" hasn't been operable in over half a century. Big employers distort anything like a free market. What you end up with is more akin to a monopsony than a marketplace.
The only other option that has ever worked is collective bargaining. That's why the biggest corporations and "conservative" politicians have conspired since the mid 1970s to destroy organized labor.
There are only two forces that can possibly counter corporate power: 1) unions and 2) government regulation. I would much rather see 1 than 2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Seize the means of production (Score:3)
Yeah, I don't understand how people believe stuff like that. I think they have lofty ideas about what supply, demand, and the observation is and/or are highly selection biased in looking at the discussion.
I am not even sure where to start the discussion for such cases. The position and its axioms are so utterly out there and upstream against the torrent of general consensus of great minds that it's almost better to just leave them be in their fantasy world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Honey, you're a full, card carrying member of the bourgeoisie and a heterosexual cis-male shitlord and bigot to boot; if the revolution came, you'd be right there in line for the guillotine along with the people you pretend to hate.
Re: Seize the means of production (Score:2)
We found the socialist!
Re: (Score:3)
Drain the swamp!
The real problem is getting them to actually do it after you elect them.
It's not Amazon (Score:2, Informative)
They pay the same minimum wages under the same rules as all of the other big and small companies. It's the "system" and laws
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case I'd say the "system" is working reasonably well under the boundary conditions we've set. These people are working, but not making enough and using government subsidy to make ends meet.
I'd be way more concerned about headlines like "Warehouse workers quit, make more money on social programs" or "Warehouse workers dying of starvation".
Is it fair that they don't make a living wage? No. But this is how our economic system works, and there's a lot of money and bullets invested in maintaining it no m
Re:It's not Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. So poor people on food stamps are able to find a job, do something productive and make a little money to improve their lives. Why would it be better to take away their job??? Do the people complaining imagine that these people were working for $50K/year before they took the temporary warehouse job?
Amazon didn't put them on welfare and food stamps. If anything, Amazon has started the process of helping them move away from that by getting work experience and skills which can translate into a better job later on.
Some people seem to think that other people owe them a living at their desired level of comfort. They don't, we got rid of slavery in the U.S. a long time ago.
Re:It's not Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would it be better to take away their job???
It is not clear how much increases in the minimum wage actually "takes away jobs". Evidence is ... mixed.
A higher minimum wage encourages businesses to replace labor with automation, unskilled labor with more highly skilled labor, and to ship jobs overseas. But are these effects bigger than the increase in income? That isn't clear, and also depends on the conditions. A study of a small MW raise in New Jersey found negligible job losses. A very big increase in Puerto Rico devastated their economy, sending them into a spiral of unsustainable debt and emigration.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon didn't put them on welfare and food stamps. If anything, Amazon has started the process of helping them move away from that by getting work experience and skills which can translate into a better job later on.
This is what we say to make ourselves feel better. I don't really believe it though. This is likely the terminus for most of these workers. However as a society we have obtained productivity from these people, who might in other systems have been unproductive and possibly troublesome. Ultimate
Re: (Score:3)
I don't blame Amazon for receiving subsidies. Well, I wish they'd have the principles to not ask but that's a lot to expect.
I mostly blame cities and states for offering those subsidies. We've seen time and again that they're generally a terrible investment. When will cities and states learn that the only way to win [youtu.be] is to not play the game [youtu.be]?
Re:It's not Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Subsidizing Amazon because it refuses to pay its employees enough to live
Amazon is one of many employers guilty of this. Remember Walmart? They are also guilty. These companies come up because they're huge, but this happens all over. The problem is not one company, ultimately where there is large supply but limited demand prices will drop.
I consider it working because the employees are productive and contributing. The funding model is not ideal, but it's not so easy to wave a wand and fix it.
It isn't fai
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Is it fair that they don't make a living wage? Absolutely.
Did you even bother reading the summary? The average Amazon warehouse worker is earning $1000/year more than the federal poverty level for a family of four. That means he's getting far more than he needs if he's single. If he's married and his wife works then his household income should be quite sufficient, and if she's not, why not?
Re: (Score:3)
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I cannot take you seriously.
Isn't surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
There was just a post last week on the conditions [slashdot.org] of one Amazon warehouse in the UK.
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
I hear the executives and those in the top 5% always whine about lower paid workers about how hard the big players have to work compared to them and how much stress they have hence why they need $200,000+ salaries etc. They need the money because they work hard. But Walmart, McDonalds, and Amazon show the opposite apparently.
I see a trend too in the I.T. industry for non programmers. We are expected to take calls 24x7 and be polite at 2am when youtube looks funny and call me on the emergencies only I.T. outage line. If I say can we do this on Monday at a reasonable hour it is grounds for termination. But these big players would not accept a call at 2am for a question on a spreadsheet and would get to keep their jobs if they tell them to fuck off I am sleeping.
Re:Isn't surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
Supply and demand in the labor market combined with the jobs having a low barrier to entry skill wise. All it takes is for people to not take the jobs at the price and under the conditions supplied, but obviously plenty of people are willing to do the work for the pay Amazon is paying.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
Supply and demand in the labor market combined with the jobs having a low barrier to entry skill wise. All it takes is for people to not take the jobs at the price and under the conditions supplied, but obviously plenty of people are willing to do the work for the pay Amazon is paying.
Yup. Ship all the factory jobs that at least paid better and then point out there are plenty of takers for shit Amazon jobs. Definitely a “prime” example of supply and demand being manipulated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
All it takes is one person willing to work for cheaper to fuck the whole thing up. Usually someone without education nor math ability to realize it won't pay the bills who has to set the wage for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All it takes is one person to open a warehouse and offer to pay Amazon's warehouse workers more to do jobs requiring similar skills/experience/personalities.
You personally can solve this entire problem right away by just doing that one thing!
Of course, if there are some obstacles to you doing that, then maybe you can appreciate that Amazon has improved these people's lives by offering them a better job than they could otherwise get and until you plan to offer them an even better one, it's pretty spiteful to
Re: (Score:2)
There are certainly better-paid jobs around, jobs these workers would love to work instead - but those are all taken. Given the high turnover, Amazon workers clearly do leave as soon as a better job opens up.
For the rest, a shit job is better than no job (or the even worse-paying jobs out there too) so they'll take what they can get - even a small income helps to supplement their food stamps or other jobs. Arguably they'd be even worse off without Amazon's employment.
But in no way does that excuse the duty
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to make 6-figures with nothing more than a high-school education. Yes, it's possible, and yes, they're generally hiring.
It's not an easy job - they're physically demanding. They're also very dangerous (even with OSHA protections). They pay well because for most people, the demands are very
Re: (Score:3)
58 weeks/yr?
Do you work for Verizon?
Re: (Score:2)
[...] a 40h/week job, 58 weeks/yr, [...]
If you need to work 58 weeks per year in order to get that yearly income, then perhaps you would be better off spending the remaining eight weeks of the year taking a math course, potentially enabling a better job (and more spare time).
Re:Isn't surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't surprising (Score:5, Informative)
"That hasn't happened since Reagan became president however."
Stop lying.
Here are examples of prison sentences that I easily found , one from during the Trump administration and one from the Obama administration.
http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-... [mlive.com]
https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
I quickly bored of trying to filter by each individual president, but this is enough to refute the "hasn't happened since Reagan" claim. In fact the turning point was in 1986, or not until 3/4 of Reagans's tenure had elapsed.
Re: Isn't surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
The Democrats and their supporters will NOT allow a law that requires E-verify. They would rather build a wall (not that a wall is happening either). This is why immigration debate is stalled. The Democrats don't want immigration laws enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, retards make poor physical barriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
Supply and demand in the labor market combined with the jobs having a low barrier to entry skill wise. All it takes is for people to not take the jobs at the price and under the conditions supplied, but obviously plenty of people are willing to do the work for the pay Amazon is paying.
No. THey will whine to congress how unfair the free market is and immediately government intervention inverse socialism is needed to bring people in from Mexico as Visa employees as they can't find qualified employees etc.
Re: Isn't surprising (Score:2)
No. THey will whine to congress how unfair the free market is and immediately government intervention inverse socialism is needed to bring people in from Mexico as Visa employees as they can't find qualified employees etc.
No. They will pay more, adjust process accordingly, and you as the end customer will make up the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it the worst jobs pay the least?
Supply and demand in the labor market combined with the jobs having a low barrier to entry skill wise. All it takes is for people to not take the jobs at the price and under the conditions supplied, but obviously plenty of people are willing to do the work for the pay Amazon is paying.
Agreed, these workers are a victim of the fact that if you don't have any special skills there's not a lot of ways for you to contribute to a modern economy. Amazon is just unusual in that they have an unusual number of such positions available.
If anything the I'm glad they're at least getting Food Stamps. One of the ideas of a UBI is people will work jobs with really crappy wages and have their income supplemented by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not supply and demand, or only partially that. It's mainly power and control.
Re: Isn't surprising (Score:2)
Those with the power are supplying that power to their employees by paying them while demanding their labor. The workers are demanding the power while supplying the labor. Still supply and demand.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the OP, 'The average warehouse worker at Walmart makes just under $40,000 annually, while at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013.' So how can you include Walmart in your statement? Think about that: the AVERAGE warehouse worker at Walmart made 40k in 2013, 5 years ago! That's almost $20 an hour and pretty good money for people driving forklifts and pushing skid jacks.
Not only that but Walmart increased its minimum starting wage and gave $1000 bonuses to employees
Re: Isn't surprising (Score:2)
Unlike Amazon, Wal Mart's staff isn't all warehouse workers though. Wal Mart has plenty of other really low paying jobs.
Re: Isn't surprising (Score:2)
Poor people tie their lives and economic well-being to the non-liquid debilitating asset of home (equity) ownership. Home ownership is poisonous to local economies whose population can't mobilize to react to a changing world. Everyone's stuck in a downward spiral of falling house prices, with no financial stability to take the hit and get the fuck out of dodge, which continues its downward spiral of poverty until Amazon comes in and rents those poor "homeowners" for pennies on the dollar.
Red state race to t
When I was in the Army (Score:4, Insightful)
We had NCOs who were on foodstamps and going out on weekends to pick up cans along the side of the road to sell to recycling services.
Mostly unskilled labor (Score:2)
Most warehouse workers are performing jobs that require little skill or talent. These jobs donâ(TM)t pay well. Itâ(TM)s always been that way. Iâ(TM)ve done these jobs. Moving up generally means going from picker to a forklift driver, or moving from night shift to day shift. Not a lot of opportunity here, but there is typically consistent work to be done and thatâ(TM)s what keeps many of these folks in these jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Waehouse work used to pay well and the article points out get paid 200% more than what Amazon is offering.
Also they do not have to piss in bottles to keep their metrics for potty breaks getting them written up and fired like the other jobs either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can take a piss how many times you want (I guess within reasonable limits), they don't really control it. But doing so makes your daily targets almost impossible to reach and you might get fired as underperformer. Most likely fast workers with some experience can work in pretty normal conditions and it just those slower/inexperienced ones that come up with such strategies to handle the requirements.
Maybe it's the other way round... (Score:4, Interesting)
Though the company now employs 200,000 people in the United States, many of its workers are not making enough money to put food on the table...
Can we say the following: -
That folks on food stamps somehow easily find work at Amazon instead of the narrative that the [little] income at Amazon, forces them to employ food stamps?
That Amazon [probably] goes out of their way to employ those who would otherwise be unemployable; these coincidentally happening to be on food stamps?
That those on food stamps get some benefit working at Amazon in terms of other perks they may be getting?
Look, I have heard of the argument that in some jurisdictions, not earning enough qualifies one to get benefits that those who make more may not necessarily qualify for.
In all the above, I stand to be corrected.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon is successful, for the most part, because they're the low cost provider. They could pay more and not be as successful, and not employ as many people. Would that be better? One needs to consider not only the employees, but the consumers who are getting an advantage from Amazon's efficiencies.
Re: (Score:2)
One needs to consider not only the employees, but the consumers who are getting an advantage from Amazon's efficiencies.
Indeed, Amazon's employees are like a bunch of Mr. Spocks, closed up in a warp core. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that Amazon is on corporate welfare. They don't pay staff enough to live on, and rely on government hand-outs to keep them alive and healthy enough to keep working in their warehouses.
Amazon is the worst kind of welfare freeloader. Big profits, can easily afford to pay a living wage, but they don't because they know that the government will give them free money. That's free money on top of the tax breaks they already got just by playing states and cities off against each other when locating war
Re: Maybe it's the other way round... (Score:2)
We pay for 13 years of education at no cost to the child is or the child's family... If the locals choose to reward teachers that fail to teach their students with higher paychecks, tenure, and life-long pension and healthcare rather that's on the community.
People aren't denied education, they simply mismanaged the resources provided to educate them.
So, what's behind this? (Score:2)
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
Any ideas? Human life counts nothing, environment, future life of our decedents are not a topic or even thought to consider.
If I look at commuter traffic stuffing freeways and thick black smut coming out of trucks exhausts when they accelerate.
Particle matters go in your lungs for good and stay there....
Well, look at something more important, will you?
Re: (Score:2)
1, Political Friends
2. Legal bribery
3. People who believe that big corporations are good
4. Illegal bribery
For over a decade Amazon lost money every year. I never actually heard that they ever became profitable, I just assumed it. So possibly it's being supported by some TLA that wants to track people. That would explain the government subsidy.
Please note: This is a hypothesis, not a theory, not a belief. It's merely an idea that's consistent with all the information I have. Don't start believing it
Fight for $15 (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of the main arguments for the left pushing "Fight for $15." If you're working for minimum wage, then you qualify for food stamps and other government assistance, so the government is essentially subsidizing employers who pay minimum wage.
Here's the math: The federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that's $14,500 a year. The Amazon wage listed in the summary of $24,300 correlates with $11.68/hour for 40 hours/50 weeks. Of course, the Amazon hourly rate is probably lower, but with overtime depending on demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Most contractors I know work off the clock after 38 hours. You want to keep your job right?
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the main arguments for the left pushing "Fight for $15." If you're working for minimum wage, then you qualify for food stamps and other government assistance, so the government is essentially subsidizing employers who pay minimum wage.
Here's the math: The federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that's $14,500 a year. The Amazon wage listed in the summary of $24,300 correlates with $11.68/hour for 40 hours/50 weeks. Of course, the Amazon hourly rate is probably lower, but with overtime depending on demand.
The problem is at a certain wage level those employees are no longer profitable to hire. It's not clear what that level is, most employers would likely pay a wage higher than most libertarians realize, but at a certain point low-skilled workers start getting pushed out of the market. I suspect a $10 minimum wage wouldn't put many people out of work, $12 is probably fine, but even economists who want a minimum wage hike worry that $15 will put a lot of people out of work.
UBI is a much cleaner fix, if everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell is it legal to pay someone SO little money for a job that they qualify for food stamps?
Re:How is this even legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is lack of real minimum wage (Score:2)
Sadly, so many idiots around here fight common sense.
Re: The problem is lack of real minimum wage (Score:2)
Put a dollar figure on that - what hourly wage provides enough money to support an adult & 1 child? While you're at it, what are the minimum number of hours each worker must work each week collecting the this 'speaker's wage? Must every job pay $15/hr and every worker be guaranteed 30 hours/wk minimum to ensure their paycheck is sufficient?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, we need a minimum wage in each area that equals what it takes to support an adult AND a single child.
Perhaps, but since it isn't currently this way, if you are only making minimum wage, maybe you shouldn't be having children.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly. so many idiots don't understand the phrase "cost of employment" or "supply and demand". See also: Venezuela
Sadly, so many idiots don't get socialistic countries in Europe don't have these problems and people still find work and can live regular lives.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, Venezuela had real issues due to China coming in and pushing them to focus on oil as opposed to having a diversified economy.
BUT, you obviously do not realitze that and obviously do not care.
In addition, you appear to have ZERO concept of what SNAP is all about. How the fuck do you think it is being funded? Not from company taxes. It is from yours and mine taxes. WE are
Re: (Score:2)
And what is nonsensical about paying employees decent enough wages that they 1.5 can live on, and then have us all pay much lower taxes?
Or do you like paying taxes or just going deeply into debt?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm eagerly waiting for you to learn how to read and do some critical fucking thinking.
But then again anyone that actually paid any attention in high school world history class might have a clue. Have you even graduated high school, yet, child?
Official Poverty Line is BS (Score:2)
The calculation used to officially determine the 'poverty line' in the USA is bullshit and thus it shouldn't be utilized for anything. Here's how it works: a low-cost diet is tallied to $X, it's then assumed that food will constitute 1/3 of a poor person's expenditures, so then $X is multiplied by 3 to give the 'poverty line'.
Ok, food IS about 1/3 of my expenditures... but the cost of food nationwide is relatively constant, particularly in comparison to the cost of housing. Depending on where you live and y
Any unskilled job pays nothing (Score:2)
It is well know that minimum wage, at the level set by the federal government, can only fund a single person.
Corporate Welfare (Score:5, Informative)
It's called Corporate Welfare.
Since our gov is owned and directed by the Satanic Witch family owned corporations, who must legally follow the deadly sin of Greed, your and my taxes go to supporting them in almost every way/manner that can be imagined by the vile minions of evil, and since 1980 corporate profit has climbed but wages and salaries have not increased and purchase power because of inflation have been reduced.
Years ago I read that the properly adjusted buying power of minimum wage would have to be $24/hr to be the same as when it was introduced. Imagine .. pumping gas was a living wage and one could consider starting a family.
Now taxes educate their workers, maintain the infrastructure and corporate legal preference, and go to supplement the pay of their workers so they don't starve to death while working their (and often camping for housing...)
It's called corporate welfare.
I suspect flawed methodology (Score:5, Insightful)
This measurement is bullshit, and I expect it'll cause more harm than good.
Apparently 14% of Americans [statisticbrain.com] are on SNAP assistance. On the one hand, yes, that's terribly high and it'd be great to have every American be able to support themselves... but at the same time, it's pointing blame at Amazon for daring to offer low-paying jobs. Again, 14% of Americans are on food stamps. Those 14% are going to need help with or without working for Amazon, so I, for one, am at least glad they're employed and partially offsetting their expenses.
I'd be happy to see studies about how many folks are employed full-time and still need SNAP, or the impact of SNAP participation on economic recovery, or the like, but this seems like a hit piece against one company in particular. Apparently in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the SNAP participation rate lowers to only "around one in 10", but it's phrased like a bad thing to be better than the national average.
Overall, of five states that responded to a public records request for a list of their top employers of SNAP recipients, Amazon cracked the top 20 in four.
From TFS, a perfect example of poor research... How did this result compare to the lists of top employers of non-SNAP recipients, or the count of employees for each company? Amazon is a huge company, and they employ a lot of people. I expect they'll be on the top of a lot of lists.
Re: (Score:2)
Having snap for part-time or seasonal might make sense, but if somebody is working 2 part-time jobs or is working full-yime, they should be able to live on the wage for at least 1.5 ppl. Obviously, if you are minimum wage and have 6 kids, you have other issues to deal with.
BUT, it is time to raise minimum wage to the point that it supports 1.5 person for that area. For some, that is simply $8 / hr. For others, it is $12-$15/hr.
Better to pa
Not exactly news ... (Score:2)
In 2013, Mother Jones Magazine reporter Mac McClelland wrote an investigative piece called "I Was a Warehouse Wage Slave [motherjones.com]" recounting her experience working as a "picker" in an Amazon warehouse in Ohio. In it, she points out that many of her fellow laborers were getting food stamps (aka "SNAP"), because they could not otherwise feed their families on their take-home pay.
It's worth noting that those workers would qualify for Ohio Medicaid - also at taxpayer expense - in addition
19th century (Score:2)
19th century employee management and working conditions are back in vogue! Wasn't the world beautiful, almost 200 years ago? /s
Need to pay for... (Score:2)
...that Lord of the Rings show though. Priorities.
Some analysis. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not an accountant, I know nothing about the internal workings of Amazon other than what I can read in public media, and I probably do not know what I am talking about. But, I can do some arithmetic.
1 - The summary states that the Amazon warehouse worker makes $24,300.
2 - Amazon is famous for foregoing profits during its first 15-20 years in favor of expansion of services.
3 - There is financial information at the following links:
Amazon revenues: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Amazon income: https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/... [nasdaq.com]
Amazon employees: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Amazon profits: https://www.theverge.com/2016/... [theverge.com]
Based on these numbers, Amazon's performance in 2017 was:
Revenue = $178b
Gross profit after cost of revenue = $66b
Income after operating expenses = $4b
Net income after taxes et al = $3b
Employment = 566,000
For prior years:
2016: $2.4b net on $136b revenue, 341,000 employees
2015: $0.6b net on $107b revenue, 231,000 employees
You can see the trend - Amazon is only recently profitable as employees expand with general revenue and profit.
I have no idea how many of the employees are warehouse or fulfillment center employees. I have seen reports that would place the number between 130k and 200k.
For the sake of this analysis, assume that other low skilled employees are included, and we will go with 200,000 bottom wage employees.
Assume that Amazon had a fit of good will toward its workers and payed them a liveable non-stressful wage.
If in 2017 the $24k current wage was upped to $34k, that is an extra $10k/person/annum x 200k workers = $2 billion extra in wages.
That is 2/3's of profit, so Amazon could have afforded it (at the expense of shareholder return).
In 2016, assume a pro rata fewer number of low wage employees, 341k/566k x 200k = 120k.
Then, $10k x 120k workers = $1.2 billion = 1/2 of profit, so it was affordable.
In 2015, estimate low wage workers at 231k/566k x 200k = 82k.
Then, $10k x 82k workers = $0.82 billion = 1/3 greater than profit, so it was not fully affordable.
Going back farther, there was less profit to fund higher wages.
I am not arguing for or against Amazon, nor for or against minimum wages or workers rights or any other sociopolitical point of view. Being in a human services profession, I tend to side with the workers, and it pains me to hear of such situations. However, I also buy from Amazon, and call me a hypocrite if you will, but so do you.
Emotional or political or social points of view aside, it can be seen that Amazon's push to expand did not permit unfettered generous wages during periods of unprofitability.
Of course, the counter argument must be made that the higher paid employees, which are greater than half the workforce, could have had reduced wages and bonuses for a more equitable pay scale.
Now that Amazon is coming into the black, the righteous thing to do would be to raise wages. Even better, given how long they operated in the red, and were famously proud to do so, they could do so for another year or two and turn their profits into stock or cash bonuses for the low paid employees, to thank them for their sacrifice during the formative years.
Vague, bad statistics, poor thinking (Score:2)
10% is not Many. That's Few. It's not really all that surprising that 10% of the workers are going to fall at the low end of the curve, especially in a low skill type job. Simply looking at the new workers in training would account for that.
"at Amazon would take home about $24,300 a year," CNN reported in 2013. "That's less than $1,000 above the official federal poverty line for a family of four."
That's a typical bad statistic. If you have a family of four it is typically including two adults. They both hav
News Flash! (Score:2)
Amazon uses temp workers who may also be on food stamps
Temp workers qualifying for SNAP benefits?!?! I don't understand, if they have a job, no matter the skills involved not the hours worked, shouldn't their part-time temporary job meet all their financial obligations, no matter how big their family or where in the country they choose to live? /sarcasm
If you want to get upset about salaries... (Score:3)
The average salary of a school teacher in the US is $38K, and you have to have a Bachelors and (usually) a Masters degree to get that job. This is the person who is teaching your children and went to college for at least 5 years to do it.
Is it really unreasonable that someone who literally pushes boxes for Amazon and does not need any advanced degree would make $14K less than that?
What we should be upset about is how the salaries in the US have spread out in the past 30 years, which basically kills social mobility. My grandparents could work their factory jobs (with no college degrees or even high school ones) and then come home to their house (which they owned) and afford to send their kids to college. There's no way that you can do that nowadays as a factory worker and you are lucky if you can even do that as a teacher or police officer.
Salaries for those lower skilled jobs need to come up, way up, even if things need to cost more to make that happen. Otherwise we are effectively sliding back into a form of indentured servitude.
Politically biased âoestudyâ and reporti (Score:2)
And what about Walmart? Oh right, Wally and his family donate to Republicans and Trump is doing everything he can to attack Bezos because of a personal vendetta.
Ok, but... (Score:2)
If I shop at Wal Mart, I'm importing poverty into my neighborhood. If I shop at Amazon, I'm exporting the poverty to shitholes like Arizona. That's a big win.
Re: (Score:2)
Painting a turd doesn't make it smell any better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I have to wonder... Have Walmart's pay and benefits improved to the point where Amazon warehouse work actually looks worse in comparison?
Or, have people just gotten sick of hearing nearly identical stories of Walmart employees living off of food stamps and Medicaid to survive and we need a new corporate villain to go after just to keep things interesting? I guess that Jeff Bezos is now worth more than most of the Walton family, so now he's got a big target on his head.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about the comparison, but many different companies have had stories about paying some of their employees so little that they had to live off some form of welfare. This implies that the problem is something in the design of the system.
That said, some companies definitely appear to be worse. I've already been boycotting Amazon for years for other reasons, but this is an additional one that confirms me in my decision.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FREEDOM to BE RWNJ (Score:2)
Israel: land of security and freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
While you've got some good points, I think they belong to a different story. E.g., many of the workers talked about (summary didn't say what proportion) are temps, and definitely wouldn't have health care through their employer.
FWIW, I oppose the minimum wage, and instead support the "possibly negative income tax". In the simple form your tax burden is: tax = income * rate - base
The base should be set so that if your income is zero, you are paid a "minimum wage". There should be NO exclusions, capital g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...while the Cardassians/Kardashians have their own line of makeup.
Re: (Score:2)
feeeeemale!!!
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Because red states can't compete with blue states. They haven't been able to for a generation. The red states are in a downward spiral race to the bottom to stay afloat. Their pro-business, rising tides policies are coming to bite them in the ass. Now, the welfare queens running the red states have to prostitute themselves on the (Wall) Street, sucking Amazon's giant dick for a bit of promised tax revenue.
Re: It's an interesting fact, but... (Score:2)
Amazon could not operate on their current margins if their workforce can't afford to take the job and eat. Any subsidy on an Amazon employee is a subsidy on Amazon's labor costs.
Think of it this way. If we had UBI, some people would do warehouse jobs for $1/hr. to make some extra cash. Amazon benefits from that cheap labor.