
Amazon’s Next-Day Delivery System Has Brought Chaos to America’s Streets - elorant
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/amazon-next-day-delivery-deaths
======
Talyen42
The efficiency and environmental impact from delivering a single $5 item in a
large cardboard box, possibly multiple times a day, several days a week via
gig economy couriers is disgusting. I literally cannot leave my apartment
complex without driving around Amazon vans parked in the middle of the street
every single day.

At a minimum, without even shipping more items, the result of gig couriers vs.
fedex/ups is 2.7x the number of vehicles on the road (due to size difference).

It also gets around legal liability costs, since you can just create and
destroy hundreds of gig courier corporations around the country when issues
arise from "pushing the envelope" in terms of safety and policy.

Can you imagine the world we would live in if 90% of current retailers went to
the Amazon ecommerce + gig courier model? Our infrastructure (primarily roads)
would immediately fail.

~~~
mrep
Wouldn't it make it better? It seems far more efficient to have 1 car drive an
optimal route to 500 houses delivering items than have 500 cars all drive to 1
store to pick up their items.

~~~
noobermin
The right answer is to do what many other cities across the world do, have
stores close to where people live so they don't have to drive those 500 cars.

~~~
carlmr
Even in Europe with public transport to the stores, I would bet delivery is
many times more efficient.

The only question is whether people buy so much more due to convenience that
the maybe 50x efficiency gain gets offset by 50x more items ordered. But I
don't think that's the case.

~~~
noneeeed
Would be interesting to know the numbers. It's a bit like IKEA, their
furniture requires less energy to produce and ship but does the resulting
cheapness cause people to buy significantly more?

I don't _think_ I buy significantly more stuff than I otherwise would just
because it's convenient from Amazon, but perhaps I do.

~~~
nine_k
Furniture is large; you can't buy significantly more sofas and closets. It may
be cheap but still not throwaway cheap.

Small items easily available via Amazon are much easier to hoard.

------
CaliforniaKarl
>…[Amazon] dictates almost every aspect of that operation, down to what
drivers wear, what vans they use, what routes they follow, and how many
packages they must deliver each day.

>Amazon says its role is to lend entrepreneurs a hand as they build small
businesses and not to control their companies, equipment, or labor force. It
said it does not make personnel decisions for them, and while it offers them
the opportunity to lease vans, purchase insurance, and manage payroll through
its preferred programs, they are free to use whichever vendors they choose.

That sounds alot to me like the relationship that Uber/Lyft/Instacart/etc.
have with their drivers, but at the business level.

That being said, I don't think it's too unique. For example, if you take a
close look at a FedEx Ground delivery van (not FedEx Express, FedEx Ground),
there'll be a note that the vehicle is actually being operated by a separate
company, under contract to FedEx. Comcast, AT&T, et al also use contractors
for end-user work; you'll see their vehicles have some sort of company logo,
but also some text like "under contract" or "installers for".

So I'm genuinely curious, especially when thinking about FedEx Ground, how is
Amazon different here?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>So I'm genuinely curious, especially when thinking about FedEx Ground, how is
Amazon different here?

They're an entire step down market, they run cheaper crappier trucks with
cheaper and crappier drivers. This means they can offer cheaper prices but the
downside is they make mistakes more and are generally less professional.

It's like the difference between the low class landscaper who shows up in a
30yo truck and lets loose half a dozen felons with week whackers in the
industrial park and the high class landscaper who shows up in the kind of
truck that won't make the secretary clutch her pearls with a crew who've only
been arrested for misdemeanors to cut the grass outside your office.

They both do the same job. One of them does it cheaply. The other looks
professional doing it and is probably more consistent and actually has
something you can sue them for if they really F up. Everyone says they prefer
the latter one but the former isn't lacking for business.

(Yes, I'm stereotyping here but you get the picture.)

~~~
ctvo
[Citation Required]

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Source: Been a landscaper. I'm exaggerating about the ubiquity of criminal
records but not by as much as most people here want to think I am.

------
Rainymood
Workers without protection get squeezed by big corporate giants because of a
race to the bottom, what a surprise ...

------
IronWolve
I was an amazon fresh subscriber but switched to Safeway delivery. Prices are
lower, better quality, way more choice. Amazon simply didn't have what I
wanted. Also, if I order in a 4 hour block, delivery is free, (1 hour is 15
bux). so I picked 5-9pm, after work, free delivery, and I don't have to go
out.

And for groceries in general, walmart delivery on items like cangoods can be a
big difference. Soups can be a dollar more on amazon. Jet.com (now owned by
walmart) is free shipping of you fill out a box, i find spices cheaper on jet,
but can goods can be hit or miss.

Amazon is handy, but its far from cheapest on many things.

~~~
CaliforniaKarl
Same here, although delivery in a 4-hour block costs around $2 or so for me (I
think the cost goes to zero if I order like $150 or more of stuff). But it is
worth it.

I (intentionally) don't have a car, and I like buying certain staples (like
toilet paper and detergent) in bulk, so having Safeway do the delivery is
great. They use their recyclable plastic bags, which I can either reuse, or
return to the driver (though that doesn't refund the ~¢2 bag feee); those bags
are put into plastic bins (the kind you see when doing a corporate move),
which are then put on a cart (my building has an elevator).

So yeah, for scheduled stuff, Safeway delivery is vastly preferable to Amazon
(or even Instacart).

------
Despegar
This is the physical world version of internet companies wiping their hands
clean of any negative externalities they create by hiding behind Section 230.

------
muddi900
How long can Amazon maintain the charade? If you look at their Net Operating
Profits, they are not doing so hot, and without AWS, they are a really big
startup.

The competition is catching up; especially Walmart, and Target is the gold
standard in omnichannel retail now. How long can Amazon's cloud business
subsidize their retail ambitions?

~~~
manigandham
This comes up often. Amazon profits are "small" because they reinvest into
growth. It's a trillion-dollar corporation operating in multiple sectors with
massive free cash flow. They're doing just fine and AWS only adds to their
margin.

I suggest you read this for more details:
[https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/21/20826405/amazons-
profit...](https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/21/20826405/amazons-profits-
revenue-free-cash-flow-explained-charts)

~~~
muddi900
I was referring to net operating profits based only on their ecommerce
operations. Amazon has been selling the 'reinvest' argument for decades, but
it would not be solvent without AWS. In fact your link kinda agrees:

>All these investments have led to lines of businesses like AWS cloud
computing and advertising that are relatively much more profitable than its
e-commerce segment.

I do not claim that Amazon has negative cash flow, and I do not know why you
would assume I claimed that.

The growth argument is going to get very weak eventually, because Amazon face
resurgent competition at home, and regulatory hurdles & Alibaba abroad. Amazon
is riding high on investor confidence, they have very little actually space
for growth.

~~~
manigandham
Amazon is perfectly profitable. AWS being more profitable does not make the
ecommerce unprofitable. Also profit is a financial formula derived from actual
operating costs and margins.

Free cash flow has nothing to do with positive or negative cash flow, it is
the payment cycle of AR vs AP that gives them a very big buffer to work with.
Also you can't claim that they have very little space for growth and then
discount the very subsidiary that's growing fastest.

Reinvestment isn't some made up argument, the company has been taking gross
profits and reinvesting into expansion for decades. It's what they do best and
it's crystal clear in the financial performance. Claiming that Amazon is
insolvent (do you know what that means?) except for a single subsidiary is
ridiculous and seems to indicate a failure in understanding the business or
accounting.

------
tyfon
I don't live in the US so I have a few questions about this. As far as I know
there exists some labour laws in the US? And if so, how is it enforced? Here
in Norway we have something called "Arbeidstilsynet", a labour inspection
office, that travel around to companies and go through routines, salaries and
HMS to make sure it's ok and all there are no severe breaches of the labour
law.

Being forced to not take a bathroom break seems like it would break a lot of
laws, not just labour laws.

~~~
acuozzo
> As far as I know there exists some labour laws in the US?

There are very few. Research how few protections a US "at will employee" has
and then know that workers considered to be "contractors" have even fewer.

------
cj
Here's a link to the same submission 3 days ago. Looks like it was flagged /
killed.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845763](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20845763)

------
quotha
Too many delivery trucks up and down my street every day, mainly from amazon,
is the reason I canceled prime, and order much less frequently from amazon. I
cannot overstate how annoying, this has become and absolute epidemic!

~~~
cj
Is this an argument against Amazon Prime specifically? Or by delivery trucks,
do you mean regular Fedex / UPS trucks delivering for other ecommerce
companies too?

~~~
quotha
Well Amazon deliveries are particularly inconsiderate -- loud music, driving
too fast, and the sheer amount. But it really is the totality of all the
trucks (and cars now too). I think it is actually very inefficient.

------
noneeeed
I'm not going to say Amazon in the UK are some paragon of virtue, but this
article does seem to make it sound much, much worse in the US. While I do see
plenty of delivery vans (for the likes of DPD, UPS as well), they certainly
don't clog up the streets. Is it a lot worse in places like London?

~~~
defqon
I live in London (Northern Line, Zone 2) and anecdotally I don't think it's
that much worse. I'm sure they're under some pressure, but Amazon or Hermes
couriers never seem to drive or park unusually recklessly, at least in my
area. They'll usually always pull into a side road to make deliveries if they
can.

Yesterday, I saw one Amazon delivery courier walk around my neighbourhood
housing estate for a whole 20 minutes looking to drop off one package. He
didn't _look_ panicked, if that says anything. Maybe it helps that London is a
bit denser than the average American suburb?

~~~
noneeeed
That sounds very much how things are here in Bath. Amazon people don't seem
excessively busy, and manage to park without killing anyone, which is
relatively impressive as parking round here is a nightmate at the best of
times.

I'm increasingly convinced that there's an effect of how US stories are
reported and then spread that amplifies negativities, possibly to do with the
size of population with a common language, it's easy to come up with enough
anedotes to make something seem like a big problem. The spate of vaping
related issues is a good example. The number of cases is tiny as a proportion
of vapers, but sounds big when talked about in absolute numbes.

------
sschueller
Amazon should offer a discount if you pool your purchases over a week or so.

~~~
cpwright
They offer $1 digital credits if you say "no rush shipping", which is
equivalent to a $1 discount/item that you are willing to have shipped together
with other items that they'll ship to you anyway.

------
fortran77
Part of the problem is also "Christmas" and the deadline that imposes on
people who observe and celebrate it.

~~~
MandieD
I absolutely despise the planet-destroying, finance-wrecking consumerism one
of my faith's most important holy days has become an excuse for in my home
country (USA), and increasingly my adopted country (Germany). Celebration is
one thing; wretched material excess is quite another.

------
ocdtrekkie
Anything I order on Amazon is super saver shipping. I don't waste my money on
Prime, and packages come whenever they do. Sometimes it's nearly next day,
sometimes it takes a week. Whenever it happens to be convenient and efficient
for them to show up with it.

------
drpgq
Well at least drones will be an improvement. I hope.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Things that fly, almost by definition, are inherently less energy efficient
than things that roll on the ground.

~~~
nesyt
That's true but they can take (nearly) straight paths to their destination
without stopping and idling, and are smaller and lighter.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Smaller and lighter, yes, but with _drastically_ less carrying capacity. Your
delivery van can pack over a hundred packages on a trip. Your delivery drone
will probably carry one or two. So it's going to make a hundred more trips to
replicate the same workload. Van might stop twenty times on the same block,
drone has to return to the warehouse between each dropoff.

And engine idling is not a huge deal compared to the amount of thrust that
must be expended constantly to keep a drone in the air (along with it's
payload).

You'll gain a little on pathing straighter and then lose everything on upward
thrust and repeat trips.

Bear in mind, the most efficient way to freight things: Trains. Trains are
bigger and heavier, but they are the most efficient at moving things from one
place to another.

The benefit you get from a drone potentially is package delivery in the time
it takes to order a pizza, because it's automated direct shipping of one item
at a time. But drones do not, in any way, offer the promise of fuel
efficiency.

~~~
penagwin
> Bear in mind, the most efficient way to freight things: Trains.

I think you just described the potential usefulness of drones in terms of
energy used for a delivery. A drone only has to carry itself and it's package
- compared to a car that has to carry it's weight, the driver's weight, the
packages in the vehicle, etc.

I think it boils down to this: How many/weight of items being delivered to
energy efficiency is on a curve. Sure trains are the most efficient method of
transporting goods, but there's a reason a train doesn't deliver our packages
to our doors. Building such an infrastructure would be insane.

That's why current delivery is tiered to the quantity/weight of the goods
you're shipping.

I have a feeling drones will be more efficient for small packages, but larger
ones will still be best by car.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
A drone only has to carry itself and it's package, but it has to carry it in a
vertical direction, and maintain that (because things in the air without
thrust tend to fall back down to the ground, and that's bad). Meanwhile, a car
only has to push itself in a horizontal direction around the ground.

As you say, the problem with trains isn't efficiency, it's infrastructure for
last mile to our doors. However, we already have that for vans: Roads and
driveways to our door are already built.

If I need a cell phone delivered to my front door, which is going to be more
efficient: The van that already is delivering a larger box two doors down
dropping it off, or a separate trip from the warehouse to my house from
effectively, a small aircraft?

------
busterarm
What are the authors or the publications' connections to the Teamsters union
to write this UPS puff-piece/AMZN hitpiece?

All logistics companies have accidents.

Edit: Oh right.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/business/media/buzzfeed-n...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/business/media/buzzfeed-
news-union-walkout.html)

~~~
davinic
First, your argument is an ad hominem attack. Do you have specific issues with
the details cited? If so, then make an argument against those.

Second, even if the reporters are unionized, the managers, _who are the ones
who greenlight stories, especially ones that involve a yearlong investigation_
, certainly are not.

Third, of course all logistics companies have accidents. Maybe you failed to
read the article because it spent plenty of time detailing the differences
between UPS and these 3PL companies.

~~~
busterarm
I think UPS does a much better job than the competition. I hate most 3PL
logistics companies. LaserShip comes to mind.

That said, the Teamsters Union specifically has been putting a ton of money
into bad PR for Amazon.

They've directly funded staged protests at AWS Summits in NY the last few
years. They are a powerful union with deep pockets and connections.

Also with the economic realities of journalism in this era, many news articles
are literally PR pieces written and provided to journalists for publication.
Most of this is undisclosed.

I think it's perfectly valid to call out what this article looks like and at
least ask questions, as there are folks out there with more resources than I
have to follow up on this. It isn't an attack, because I didn't make a
statement -- I asked a question.

