
Amazon to Create 100,000 New Jobs in U.S. In Next 18 Months - devy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/amazon-to-create-more-than-100-000-new-jobs-in-u-s-in-18-months
======
aero142
How to PR.

1) Identify large trends or the goals of powerful people.

2) Release feed prewritten BS to media that describes what you already planned
to do in terms that aligns it with the above goals.

3) Profit(or don't get in a pissing match with our appearance above all else
President Elect)

~~~
rdslw
4) forget to mention that your definition of 'create job' is 'take it from
some other business which must fire a person and move this position to
(amazon)'

~~~
antisthenes
"Amazon to get rid of 100,000 warehouse workers due to automation by 2020"
just doesn't have the same ring to it!

------
pchristensen
The article is making it sound like Amazon is doing this b/c of Trump. Like
Amazon was tired of growing, but got a second wind after the election

This part also seemed off:

"What’s more, the hiring spree could do less to help the U.S. economy than is
immediately apparent. Research groups have argued that the company kills more
jobs than it creates because it has disrupted the traditional retail
industry."

If Amazon getting into groceries and same-day delivery fuels a lot of the
hiring growth, you're not killing mom and pops, you're competing w/Wal-Mart
and Target. And I have to imagine that an Amazon warehouse and a bunch of
delivery drivers is more jobs than a big-box.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>And I have to imagine that an Amazon warehouse and a bunch of delivery
drivers is more jobs than a big-box.

It's probably fairly close - operating a checkout lane is easier than
delivering packages, but stocking an open-to-the-public store is harder than
loading things onto delivery trucks. Figuring that out is fun, but honestly a
waste of time unless you really want to get into operations research.

The outside view is way better approach. Amazon will compete with Target on
some combination of price and quality. In other words, Amazon will do some
combination of being more efficient (= cause fewer dollars to be spent on
labor) and providing new services that customers are willing to pay for (=
cause more dollars to be spent on labor). So the two things we need to
actually look at is how much a customer will spend monthly shopping at Target
vs Amazon delivery, and average hourly rate of the employees required to
provide marginal service. The first determines whether the economy is doing
more work in terms of dollar value, the second determines how the growth is
distributed between increased employment vs increased wages.

------
ilamont
One other issue bubbling behind the scenes is Bezos wants Amazon businesses to
have a bigger footprint in China. He brought it up at the "Tech Summit" with
Trump last month (1):

 _Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos was apparently very voluble, and aimed many of his
points at how U.S. companies had a hard time succeeding in China, and what the
government could do about it._

Considering Trump has threatened to upend Sino-U.S. relations over the Taiwan
issue, the answer may be, not so much.

1\. [http://www.recode.net/2016/12/15/13976806/immigration-
matern...](http://www.recode.net/2016/12/15/13976806/immigration-maternity-
leave-grid-software-president-trump-tech-meeting)

~~~
notyourwork
I think part of the question is how much leverage does the US have. It feels
to me that 10+ years ago the United states had a lot more leverage in the
world to push things in their favor.

Today it feels opposite that the US is losing that leverage and China doesn't
really care. Perhaps I am wrong.

~~~
harryh
All other things being equal, a country's GDP is probably a good 1st order
estimate of its influence in the world. Over the past several decades China's
GDP has been increasing at a faster rate than the US so your feeling is
probably correct. Relatively speaking China's influence has been rising and
the US's has been falling.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It mostly means that in terms
of GDP per capita China has been catching up which means many millions being
lifted out of poverty.

------
fludlight
90% of these jobs will be at or very close to minimum wage. The company might
also figure out a clever way to use independent contractors so they are paid
less than minimum wage.

~~~
mabbo
Do you have any numbers on what you mean by 'close to minimum wage'? Quick
Googling shows that Amazon pays fulfillment associates $12-13/hour starting,
which is much higher than the US minimum wage of $7.25.

The more important factor is competition. If Amazon hires 10 people, you can
bet tradition retail needed at least 11 to do the same amount of work. If
Amazon is undercutting them, those businesses will die off, and 11 people will
be out of work.

If Amazon wants to hire 100,000 logistics/fulfillment employees, you can bet
there's more than 100,000 people who will be out of work elsewhere.

Bias note: I spent 5 years making software for Amazon's logistics division.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>If Amazon is undercutting them

That's the actually important question. If Amazon is convincing people that
delivery service is worth paying a premium for, that's a new product/service
that the economy is producing and employing people for, and is itself economic
growth. If Amazon is instead more efficient and competing on price, then
they're only freeing up the ability for the displaced to do productive
economic work elsewhere in the economy.

~~~
mabbo
Bezos's famous quotation: "Your margin is my opportunity". They'll alway
undercut the competition if they can.

------
sorenbs
It seems to me that discussions of "job creation" often neglects to account
for what these jobs replace. Amazon is master of operational efficiency. It's
very likely that Amazon hiring 100K new people will lead to other companies
laying off a total significantly greater than that. This is progress and
should be celebrated for sure, but first we need to acknowledge this fact.

~~~
exclusiv
I listened to an interesting podcast recently about the wars between Kansas
and Missouri near the state line. They'd offer incentives and try to lure
companies with tax breaks. Many companies would move, often several times back
and forth.

Anyway, the states would tout "new jobs" when they won but wouldn't talk about
the ones they lost. The jobs weren't new at all either.

Turns out that all the effort both states put in basically came out to a wash
so both states were trying to setup a truce to avoid poaching and having to
keep offering incentives.

------
jimmytidey
In additional to PR bullshit...

If you make enough jobs the Fed will induce a recession:

[https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-
company](https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company) (an article I can
imagine quoting extensively from now on...)

You can make a company bigger and more prosperous by employing more people,
theoretically, forever. A country doesn't work like that - but Trump probably
thinks it does.

Even if this were true, companies creating more jobs wouldn't necessarily be a
good idea.

~~~
DenisM
It's an interesting article, thanks for sharing.

I feel the jobs argument is outdated. As of right now the fed is unable to
induce inflation despite huge amounts money pumped into the market. In other
words the fed lost its ability to control employment.

It also ignores the productivity gains from increased demands of bigger
markets created by free trade. Yes, productivity gains destroy jobs, which is
the opposite of what the globalists like to say. However this is essentiallly
a Luddite argument. Had we stuck with it we would still live in an agrarian
society. Reducing costs stemming from increased productivity affords more
expendable income, creating new markets and new jobs in them. So free trade
has the effect of promoting productivity, which I argue is the same as
scientific and technological progress of our civilization.

~~~
matthewbauer
> I feel the jobs argument is outdated. As of right now the fed is unable to
> induce inflation despite huge amounts money pumped into the market. In other
> words the fed lost its ability to control employment.

That was probably true 2-6 years ago but since then the Fed has raised rates
in Dec 2015[1], Dec 2016[2] and shows signs of raising them again (meaning
that inflationary policies are doing something). The "liquidity trap" is
mostly over.

> It also ignores the productivity gains from increased demands of bigger
> markets created by free trade.

How can an individual gain productivity from increased trade? Without
increased education or new technologies, individual productivity (and in
aggregate, world productivity) will not be affected by changes in trade
policy.

[1]:
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/201...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151216a.htm)

[2]:
[https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/201...](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20161214a.htm)

~~~
DenisM
Larger markets afford economy of scale to pretty much any business. Fixed
costs remain fixed, variable costs shrink with increased volume. This reflects
in hiring too - making twice as many cars does not require twice as many
people. If the output grows faster than employment the productivity is
increasing.

------
stevefeinstein
The article doesn't even mention what kind go jobs they are. For all I know
they could be associates who sell things using amazon's infrastructure. Or low
paying high stress warehouse picker jobs. But those are increasingly being
automated away.

------
seertaak
Jeff Bezos is a master. The game he's playing is "talk, talk, fight, fight".
On the one hand, his public utterances and announcements signal a detente viz-
a-vis Trump. On the other hand, he continues to direct WaPo's attacks against
Trump.

Those saying this is not politics fail to realize that companies that reach a
certain threshold size have no choice but to play politics. If they don't,
avaricious politicians will take the politics _to them_. This is the lesson
Google learned from Microsoft, and Bezos didn't fail to learn it.

------
DoodleBuggy
Were these 100,000 new jobs not previously planned?

------
eva1984
In their warehouse? Well, a job is a job, I guess.

~~~
pclstyle
An incredibly arrogant response to what could potentially be an enormous
opportunity for tens of thousands of families. What's wrong with a warehouse
job if it gets somebody out of unemployment?

~~~
eva1984
I visit their warehouse once. It is not a good job, to be put directly,
everyone looks like they would jump out immediately if given a choice, which
should be no surprise, since the warehouse is designed in a way to maximize
automation, the stuff left for human to do is still pretty robotic.

My statement is easy to understand, a majority of claimed 100,000 jobs might
be that desirable, even though they are jobs indeed. As other comments put,
those jobs help little in the person future career, and is not something you
can do for a long time either.

------
pinewurst
Amazon is a widely acknowledged terrible employer yet people are silent. They
make Walmart look like Google at least for their warehouse people.

[https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/](https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/)

------
mars4rp
how many jobs it destroys?

------
losteverything
Does anyone know how Z seeks applicants?

What & where & who hires for Z?

------
anon987
Don't waste your time, it's PR bullshit:

"“It’s a very powerful headline, and the timing certainly makes Trump look
good,”

The staffing up isn’t particularly surprising for a company moving into
multiple categories from groceries, hardware and video to fashion and cloud
services. But the move could appease Trump, who tangled with Amazon Chief
Executive Officer Jeff Bezos during the election campaign.

~~~
matthewaveryusa
Look, regardless of your political inclinations you can't blankly hate
everything Trump does. I get it, it's cognitive dissonance, but give credit
where it's do. One company committing to 100k U.S jobs is huge. Looking at the
numbers, that alone will contribute to 2.5-5% of job growth in the US
(assuming job growth is btween 100-200k/month.)

Is it a political move? How couldn't it be? Is it somthing to lambaste about?
No, it's basic job creation in the US, something we really need to sustain the
America us cosmopolitans have forgotten about.

~~~
xenadu02
You're half-right. Not everything Trump does will be horrible and bad. We
should judge him by his actual actions.

I'm 95% confident he is going to be a disaster (and so will this Republican
congress) but maybe this country needs to experience some pain to understand
that both sides aren't equal. Nevertheless I can't lay blame until action is
actually taken and the results are known.

~~~
astrodust
"We can't press charges when someone's driving drunk until they crash into
something or kill somebody. Our hands our tied!"

~~~
yazaddaruvala
"We can't press charges when someone's driving [ _seemingly_ ] drunk until,
[we know for a fact they are drunk or,] they crash into something or kill
somebody. Our hands our tied!"

Be careful, your hubris is making conclusions you don't have facts for. You're
more than likely right, but its a bad habit to start.

~~~
astrodust
Exhibit A: The "blind trust" that is anything but.

Exhibit B: Mass-terminating appointees before they're formally replaced
leaving huge parts of the government rudderless for months.

Nearly everything about this presidency is off the charts batshit insane.
There is no way this thing would pass a political breathalizer.

Have you listened to anything he's said? Did George W. Bush teach people
nothing?

~~~
cmdrfred
> off the charts batshit insane

I suggest you become more of a student of history. At very least it will leave
you with bigger charts.

~~~
astrodust
Name another president that's generated as many scandals _prior_ to entering
office. Name another president that's won the electoral college but lost the
popular vote by over two million votes. Name another president who's actively
hostile against several major branches of government. Name another president
who's apparently been collaborating with a major foreign adversary.

There's been _candidates_ for office with crazier ideas, with fewer
qualifications, with more scandals, but none have ever been elected before.
Ths path is well trod by tinpot dictators, not US presidents.

In terms of US history, the only thing missing is Trump killing someone in a
duel on the White House lawn to really put this over the top.

~~~
cmdrfred
>Name another president that's generated as many scandals prior to entering
office

John Quincy Adams, he called the sitting presidents wife a whore during his
campaign. I'd argue Hillary Clinton had more scandals prior to office, but she
lost.

>Name another president that's won the electoral college but lost the popular
vote by over two million votes

Name another president who ran when there was over 310 million Americans.

>Name another president who's actively hostile against several major branches
of government

Thomas Jefferson, Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight "beware the military
industrial complex" Eisenhower, and JFK.

>Name another president who's apparently been collaborating with a major
foreign adversary.

Well if the standard of evidence on that is "unnamed sources" and top secret
documents nobody is going to see for a few decades. All of them according to
my unnamed source in my top secret document.

In the interest of fairness may I note that Hillary Clinton's state department
approved a sale of 20% of this nations uranium to Russia and shortly
thereafter she received a few million dollar donation to the Clinton
foundation from a Russian weapons manufacturer who had directly benefited from
that deal. Clearly she didn't think Russia was a threat when she was cashing
their checks.

------
almonj
Incredibly great news.

------
danyfs
That's a good news!!! Amazon offers high-quality jobs.

------
nepotism2016
Might as well rename the company "Trump" \- BTW "Amazon Just Got Slapped With
a $1 Million Fine For Misleading Pricing"

