
Amazon issues rare public response to Bernie Sanders - spking
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/29/amazon-bernie-sanders-claims-are-inaccurate-and-misleading.html
======
wcarron
> Bottom line: the taxpayers of this country should not have to subsidize
> employees at a company owned by Mr. Bezos who is worth $155 billion. That is
> absurd," Sanders said in the statement.

Agreed. This isn't an Amazon only problem, but they are certainly egregious
perpetrators of trying to play cities and states off each other for tax breaks
and other benefits at taxpayer expense.

Let's also not forget the whole "peeing in bottles out of fear" fiasco:
[https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-
amazon-...](https://www.pulse.ng/bi/tech/undercover-author-finds-amazon-
warehouse-workers-in-uk-peed-in-bottles-over-fears-of-being-punished-for-
taking-a-break-amzn-id8258070.html)

~~~
bko
I won't comment on Amazon shopping around for tax breaks, but I would take
issue with idea that welfare payments "subsidize" Amazon.

The whole idea that public assistance subsidizes employers is based on the
false assumption that people only require to get paid what they "need" and
therefore accept lower wages because they don't need as much due to government
aid.

I think a more plausible explanation is that employers pay employees based on
productivity and supply of employees with that skill set. If an employer can
make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that employer will not pay more
than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees demand. And if there is an
oversupply of employees with those skill levels, then they can choose from the
pool based on the market rate. This is pretty standard economic theory.

Another way you can think about it is that Amazon is helping states and
federal government by paying these employees, otherwise the welfare payments
would be higher.

~~~
beojan
> If an employer can make $15 an hour per marginal employee, then that
> employer will not pay more than $15 an hour, regardless of what employees
> demand.

If a company needs 10 employees, then it will hire 10 employees at whatever
cost, or stop operating. If it can only hire those employees at $100 an hour,
then it will have to set its prices so that it makes at least $100 / employee-
hour. And if it can't, it will operate at a loss or stop operating.

------
toomuchtodo
> Instead, Senator Sanders continues to spread misleading statements about pay
> and benefits. Amazon is proud to have created over 130,000 new jobs last
> year alone. In the U.S., the average hourly wage for a full-time associate
> in our fulfillment centers, including cash, stock, and incentive bonuses, is
> over $15/hour before overtime. We encourage anyone to compare our pay and
> benefits to other retailers.

It's not $15/hour if you have to include non-hourly wage compensation. It's
below $15/hour. And that only applies to full time associates.

Alas, Amazon will put up more than a fight than Disney did [1]. Good practice
for the next corporate targets.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-
min...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/disney-world-minimum-wage-
union.html) (Walt Disney World Workers Reach Deal for $15 Minimum Wage by
2021)

~~~
mmt
> that only applies to full time associates.

This is what immediately caught my eye when reading Amazon's response.

I was under the impression that their FCs are primarily staffed by
contractors. If "associate" is just corporatespeak for employee, then that
assertion (most of Amazon's rebuttal, really) could be remarkably
insignificant, even if technically accurate.

------
RobLach
Heh, I’m sure an official guided tour by Amazon of a fulfillment center will
be as accurate and reassuring as an official guided tour of a supermarket by
the North Korean travel ministry.

------
siruncledrew
Amazon is trying their darnedest to sweep this under the rug before it gets
bigger than it already is. They just paid a bunch of people to Tweet nice
things about worker conditions, now they issue a rare public response.

------
splatzone
I hope Sanders' survey gets an honest response and Amazon don't try any dirty
tricks. This site deserves to be spread about more:
[https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home](https://sites.google.com/site/thefaceofamazon/home)

------
RobLach
There’s a clever market force here in forcing a business to cover the costs of
a government program if a company’s employees use it; it’ll be in the best
interest of the company to then provide just enough wages and internal
services to allow their employees to live a healthy life while a less
efficient state run program pulls back on its necessity.

For example: Amazon could end up paying their employees an extra $3/hour while
eliminating the state costing taxpayers $6/hour equivalent of benefits run
through layers of bureaucracy. The difference is that instead of the entire
tax base holding the bill, it would be the customers of Amazon.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
> provide just enough wages and internal services to allow their employees to
> live a healthy life

The fact that this is a novel concept is terrifying.

------
viburnum
Bernie is wrong, it's not up to employers to provide a guaranteed decent
standard of living, that job can only be done by society.

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
Disagree entirely.

If a company is paying so little that the government has to step in and give
them extra money just so they can pay the rent and eat, then that effectively
means my tax dollars are subsidizing their wage.

This attitude allows Amazon to pay less than a living wage. The winner of SNAP
isn't the person receiving SNAP, it's the person's employer which is allowed
to pay their employees less. My tax dollars aren't subsidizing the employee,
they're subsidizing Amazon.

~~~
chibg10
This is misguided. Your tax dollars aren't subsidizing Amazon -- they're
subsidizing everyone who pays Amazon's wages or lower.

If the market value of labor has fallen below the threshold needed to live an
acceptable (as judged by society) lifestyle, the burden of making up the
difference should fall on society -- not arbitrarily on the companies which
happen to do business in industries whose jobs require essentially no skills
to perform.

Hypothetically speaking, if Google automated away 50M tedious and repetitive
"white collar" jobs and those 50M workers are now competing for warehouse
jobs, why must warehouse operators' pay a living wage while Google pays
nothing for putting 50M workers out on the street?

The burden of caring for society's poor must fall on society. As it was
society's technological innovation and policy decisions (i.e. globalization of
labor markets) that has led to the destruction of unskilled labor's market
value.

~~~
snarfybarfy
Which market value of labor are you speaking of?

This seems to be a common fallacy, because people call it the 'labor market'.
However I would claim that there is no labor market in the classical econ 101
sense.

A market needs to be transparent, have low transaction costs, be voluntary and
have a sufficient number of buyers and sellers.

Otherwise you might still _call_ it a market but it will not have any magical
properties that the government shouldn't mess with.

~~~
paulddraper
Which of those isn't present in the labor market?

~~~
Sohcahtoa82
Being voluntary.

For the most part, having a job is a requirement to have a place to live and
eat.

------
cliffordthedog
oooh, he's got them scared.

I guess this is because of his proposal to tax companies 100% of an welfare
benefits their workers get?

Love that idea BTW.

> While Senator Sanders plays politics

god forbid a US senator plays politics.

This from the company that launched a massive and blatant astroturfing
campaign last week.

> In addition to highly competitive wages and a climate controlled, safe
> workplace

Bet a signed dollar they stuck climate controlled in because of the old
stories about them getting ambulances to wait outside instead of installing
AC.

I'll believe the employees. Lets hear what they have to say, anonymously and
candidly.

------
joejerryronnie
It sounds like Bernie is employing Trumpian twitter tactics to further his
agenda - playing to the lowest common denominator, pushing an "us vs them"
narrative, etc. I would just hope everyone who has been critical of Trump for
these techniques is equally critical of Sanders.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
It's not the tactics that people are critical of.

------
smallgovt
We should stop vilifying companies that provide unsustainable wages. Providing
above market wages erodes your competitive advantage. Systematically eroding
your competitive advantage will kill your company.

It's the government's job to implement regulations that protect society from
free capitalism. In so doing, it will level the playing field so companies no
longer have to choose between 'doing the right thing' and 'increasing
existential risk'.

'Public shaming' should be used an agent for change -- not to satiate some
inner desire for justice. In this case, we can't expect these companies to
change on their own accord regardless of the shaming. So, shame the government
who is not implementing proper regulation -- not the company.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I'm okay with killing companies if they're not providing a living wage. This
is the polite method (public shaming) to affect change.

> So, shame the government who is not implementing proper regulation -- not
> the company.

Unfortunately, shaming the government isn't enough.

~~~
smallgovt
My point is you're not killing the company. These companies are alive and
well.

You are, however, attempting to shame/villify them into change. That's just
not going to work.

It will require a regulatory intervention to change their behavior.

~~~
toomuchtodo
See my sibling comment where they shamed Disney into paying $15/hour. This
action is required until enough representatives are elected to office who can
fix public policy.

Every hour that goes by where these workers don't have their wages raised is
thousands of hours they weren't paid a living wage. At the same time, each
dollar these workers need in government support is a dollar out of taxpayer
pockets and into Amazon's pocket.

~~~
smallgovt
Yea, I agree unions can solve this problem. Unfortunately, a lot of these
workers are independent contractors which weakens a union's efficacy.

In any case, the solution here is not to shame/vilify the company. You need to
apply real economic/legal pressure.

~~~
mmt
> a lot of these workers are independent contractors

My understanding was that, though the "Flex" delivery workers could be
independent contractors (where allowed, similar to the ride hailing
situation), that's not possible for the fulfillment workers.

That is, they're contractors from Amazon's POV, but they're still employees of
a contracting company (aka body shop [1]). I'm not sure how unionizing would
work in that situation, but I imagine at least something must be possible if
there always must be (at least) an employer.

[1] at least in tech. not sure if that bit of slang gets used elsewhere.

