Struggling Workers Found Sleeping In Tents Behind Amazon's Warehouse (thecourier.co.uk) 433
"At least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail giant's base," reports a Scottish newspaper -- hidden behind trees, but within sight of Amazon's warehouse, and right next to a busy highway. An anonymous reader writes:
Despite Scotland's "bitterly cold winter nights" -- with lows in the 30s -- the tent "was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home," one Amazon worker told the Courier. (Though yesterday someone stole all of his camping equipment.) Amazon charges its employees for shuttle service to the fulfillment center, which "swallows up a lot of the weekly wage," one political party leader told the Courier, "forcing people to seek ever more desperate ways of making work pay.
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000 temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline, "The company came under fire last month from local activists who claimed that agency workers are working up to 60 hours per week for little more than the minimum wage and are harshly treated."
Amazon responded, "The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000 temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline, "The company came under fire last month from local activists who claimed that agency workers are working up to 60 hours per week for little more than the minimum wage and are harshly treated."
Amazon responded, "The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a straman argument (Score:2)
Re:Is this a straman argument (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole story is bullshit whining about nothing, pushing a political agenda by pretending any of this is news. So yeah, all the talk about it spikes the bullshit meter.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this a straman argument (Score:4, Insightful)
It's neither strawman nor bullshit. If individuals are permitted to control their costs by selecting the lowest-priced goods and services available to them then why would a corporation not be permitted to do the same?
Ask any Irish friend you have about the "Penny Walls" in Ireland, and you'll have your answer.
Re: Is this a straman argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the asymmetry in levels of influence. Don't you remember the 19th-century industrialization process and the civic problems it spawned I until proper worker protection, unions etc were invented? Geez, don't you guys learn anythingnin school over there?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You should be ashamed you pay so little for the goods and services that free-market economies provide. Calculate all the money you've saved and remit that total to the workers' salary augmentation fund.
Just that we don't have the money that would enable them to sleep comfortably in a reasonably heated bedroom in a nice and modest house. Once all this is automated, they won't have any work or income, but hopefully, they can sleep in the comfort of their homes, assuming that they're not evicted for the crime of not paying their rent
Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little" (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut executive salaries in half, put the savings in your hypothetical fund, and I bet you'll find it has plenty of money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little" (Score:4, Informative)
Probably exactly the same given that it's repeatedly been demonstrated that beyond being comfortable, salary is a really terrible motivator for job performance or job satisfaction.
Re: (Score:3)
If only that applied to executives, too.
Oh, right... you said salaries, not bonuses.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. If you cut the incentive to move up the ranks vs. move to a different company, sure, the company will suffer. But I don't know anyone who would say "Well, for a $12M bonus I'd want to be CEO, but at $6M, no way" Or at least, I don't think any significant number of people would, and I sincerly doubt the one you'd want to be CEO would.
Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little" (Score:4, Insightful)
If that would happen, sure.
But it wouldn't matter for two reasons. Your average employee might reach management, but the days of there being a career path from the factory floor to the CEO's office are long gone. (It wasn't very often the case to start with anyway.) We're talking about executives, not your average floor manager position that an employee might have a chance of reaching.
Secondly, the reason I say to cut it in half is because these people make tons of money. Are you telling me you'd take the position for $3 million a year, but $1.5 million just wouldn't cut it? Because I suspect most of these lower level employees would be overjoyed to take it at the $1.5 million level.
There is no excuse for the people at the top making that much while paying employees starvation wages.
Re: "Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little (Score:3)
Half of 'a lot' is still 'a lot'. But 'incentive to move' is one thing, its the 'capacity to move' thats vaporising. As orgs get larger and larger, the base of the pyramid gets wider. If you were born on the wrong side of the tracks, this means fewer bridges to the prosperous side of town. Making the glitzy side glitzier does nothing except cement dissatisfaction.
Re:"Amazon be ashamed pay their workers so little" (Score:5, Informative)
Cut executive salaries in half, put the savings in your hypothetical fund, and I bet you'll find it has plenty of money.
Amazon has a salary cap. No one makes more than ~$180k in salary. Perhaps you wanted a different word? In total executive compensation, the CEO made 1.6M, and one other guy made $230k. So try doing the research next time. http://finance.yahoo.com/quote... [yahoo.com]
Bezos is vastly wealthy because he founded the company and owns a non-trivial percentage of the stock. The other executives are no doubt also worth many millions, for the same reason - they held on to early stock grants. Amazons average profit per employee is ~$2600. Of course, their gross profit is much higher, but they spend most of it hiring more people, and buying servers.
All of this is public record. But you seem to prefer ignorance.
And how would one do that? (Score:2)
Near as I know, there is no such thing as "the workers' salary augmentation fund." So where does one send money? You can't just give it to Amazon, the fact aside that they aren't set up to just take money without offering goods/services in return, they wouldn't funnel it to the warehouse workers. So where does one send money?
Or are you just making a statement to try and make people feel bad, as though they should do something, but providing a bogus solution?
Re: (Score:2)
We usually would do that through progressive taxation and redistribution (esp. through services). That way, instead of hammering the person saving 30 pence of cat food (who may not be able to afford it), you get it from the profits of the people who aren't paying enough to their employees.
Re: (Score:2)
In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith stated that workers should be treated as a renewable resource.
That is: Pay your workers a wage that can sustain a livable condition. Because if you don't, they'll come in to work tired and hungry, and will be less productive.
Brexit will ruin this paradise (Score:5, Interesting)
I was told the economy in that area was great and that it would all be ruined by Brexit. If the economy is so terrific, how can Amazon find any unemployed people to work at their fulfillment centers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you where told that Brexit was a risk to the economy and could jeopardise the fragile recovery from the financial meltdown of 2008.
The reality is that with our currency down the shitter since Brexit that you will be worse off as a result, probably to the tune of hundreds of pounds a year. For me personally it will be over one thousands pounds by my calculation. Fortunately I am well off enough to be able to manage. The bulk of the morons that voted for it (aka the uneducated just about managing's) will s
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
When a big stink was made about all the counterfeit products on Amazon, maintaining customer confidence that all products are legitimate was your number one priority. When 80,000 Kindle users' passwords were dumped online, the security of your customers was your number one priority. Now you claim the safety of your employees is your number one priority.
This is all bullshit. You can only have one number one priority, and we all know that's MAKING MONEY.
Re: (Score:3)
"The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
When a big stink was made about all the counterfeit products on Amazon, maintaining customer confidence that all products are legitimate was your number one priority. When 80,000 Kindle users' passwords were dumped online, the security of your customers was your number one priority. Now you claim the safety of your employees is your number one priority.
This is all bullshit. You can only have one number one priority, and we all know that's MAKING MONEY.
You can only have one #1 priority. At a time. So, if these are nonsimultaneous examples, there is fallacy in your logic.
But that last point, about a malevolently greedy, publicly traded corporation being motivated by profit-seeking... well, that's just reprehensible.
Re: (Score:2)
"You can only have one number one priority"
You've never been an engineer, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
"The safety and well-being of our permanent and temporary associates is our number one priority."
When a big stink was made about all the counterfeit products on Amazon, maintaining customer confidence that all products are legitimate was your number one priority. When 80,000 Kindle users' passwords were dumped online, the security of your customers was your number one priority. Now you claim the safety of your employees is your number one priority.
This is all bullshit. You can only have one number one priority, and we all know that's MAKING MONEY.
Well, you do have to admit that PR campaigning of utter bullshit is at least their number two priority...
Re: (Score:2)
Camping in a tent behind work? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No True Scotsman would use a tent... He'd cuddle up with some sheep
Thats a phallusy.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't use a stranger's sheep, you don't know what partner's they've had
Re: (Score:2)
That explains the Scottish national motto, Wha daur meddle wi me sheep?
Re: (Score:2)
Or Nemo ovis impune lacessit in Latin.
Re:Camping in a tent behind work? (Score:5, Funny)
that's funny, all the latin speaking people I know are into altar boys not sheep
Re:Camping in a tent behind work? (Score:5, Funny)
No True Scotsman would use a tent
A tent!?! Luxury!
When I was a lad, we lived in a cardboard box, at the side of the road . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Big deal. I still live in a van, down by the river.
Re: (Score:3)
A true Scotsman is going to bring one or two into the tent to keep warm.
You thought that sound was bagpipes! lol
Re: (Score:2)
You're thinking of the Welsh.
Dunfermline...Dunfermline (Score:3)
I remember now - the birthplace of Andrew Carnegie!
'No such thing as free shipping' (Score:5, Interesting)
Came across an article (https://www.fastcompany.com/3061686/free-shipping-is-a-lie [fastcompany.com]) a few weeks ago that spells out part of the problem: Amazon loses around 45% of all shipping costs. They can take part of the hit because they have so much volume, but it also has to be paid for somewhere...and how they treat their staff is an obvious area in this instance.
Full disclosure: I also work for an online shop, and we struggle with the idea of 'free shipping'. Since we deal with food, our margins are already low, plus we ship a lot of refrigerated items, so a lot need expedited delivery. In the US it's not so bad (seems like $8 will get many packages just about anywhere in 2 days), but here in Canada, shipping fees are brutal -- even shipping in our own city is a minimum of about $10 -- and no doubt most people expect free shipping as well. As the article points out: it's just not sustainable. 'Free shipping' fees are paid elsewhere down the line.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no such thing as "free shipping". You can clearly see it on Amazon: an item through Amazon Prime: $11, from a 3rd party: $7 + $4 shipping. Free shipping is a marketing technique, you'd rather go with the $11 with free shipping than the $7 with $4 shipping.
Quit then! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quit then! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, in part, it is Amazon's fault. But only in part. The problem is complex with many parts so it's only natural that the solution will be as well.
Bonus Army (Score:2, Insightful)
In late-stage capitalism, living indoors is optional for workers.
"They live in tents because they've chosen to live in tents. Now pass me some more frog legs and foie gras."
CEOs and gangster capitalists are going to be so shocked when they see mobs building guillotines outside their office windows. The recent elections - Brexit and Der Trumpen - have moved us toward that day. What will voters who said, "Fuck it, I'm voting for Trump to burn the whole motherfucker down", say when Trump doesn't improve the
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long it will take the ignorant fools who voted for Trump to figure out that he is screwing them, too.
Could get interesting if they decide to go all agro.
Re: (Score:2)
The smarter ones - the ones who wear shoes and occasionally visit a dentist - have already figured it out.
Just wait a year, then they'll really be screaming. We're in for epic levels of corruption, nepotism, malfeasance, dismantling of the social safety nets...
ITT: Metric fucktons of AMZN apologists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Price alone isn't a justification for such conditions. If anything, price-related justifications show a callous disregard for those that do work (or seek it).
If anything, this is a reason why permatemping (what Amazon is doing), classification abuse (hiding behind a third party), and zero-hour work (the ultimate in precarious work when combined w/ UK-style workfare) needs to DIAF and the remains be shoveled into the nearest black hole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazon is ... (Score:3)
... CEOs and shareholders who want instant asymptotic revenue growth.
Morals, ethics, decency, and humanity are for non-profits.
In the US, SCOTUS says Amazon is a person.
They didn't specify what kind.
Really badly written article (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary says "he stuff was stolen". But the article itself is much less clear:
He added that he had opted to stay in a tent as it was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home in Perth, although his camping equipment had disappeared by Friday afternoon.
Did he say it had vanished? Or did the article writer find it had vanished on Friday? Not at all clear.
Also no aspect of the interview really asking the guy if he "had to" camp as the Willie bloke claimed, they just want you to assume that is the case. The actual guy who was camping just said it was cheaper and easier - if you are just going to be there a few week or two for seasonal work why wouldn't you prefer this to any kind of commute? Back when I used to work insane hours programming I slept under my desk for a week. It wasn't because I had to, it was just way easier at the time.
Also low 30's (assuming F) is not "battery cold", it's just mildly chilly and most sleeping bags would handle that temperature easily. I've camped before in sub-zero (again F) temperatures before and that's not at all uncomfortable with the right equipment.
Basically the whole thing seems written with a pre-determined viewpoint in mind and hardly any real research or interviewing done.
Has nothing to do with livable wage (Score:2)
And everything to do with people being a little HARDER than your default little bitch tech worker.
Subtract the family, I would sleep in a tent until I could afford the van for decent pay. Double if I was unemployed before I was hired on.
Businesses hiring temp workers for low wage would do well to offer campgrounds.
Starving artists. (Score:2)
Struggling writers found sleeping In tents behind Random House HQ
So, think anyone will notice the difference?
Similar in the US (Score:3)
There were already similar stories in the US where Amazon workers lived in camper RVs and travelled from warehouse to warehouse as work was needed. So it does happen here.
Beyond that, I used to work in an office park with small number of fulfillment warehouses. During a health kick phase of my life, I used to spend an hour a day walking the office park in loops. It was reasonably safe and let me de-stress from work. It was during these walks when I happened to look into the adjacent woods you normally could not see from within the office park or the road and realized there were numerous tents set up, some carefully camouflaged.
This wasn't even Amazon but a much smaller fulfillment operation, mainly for Brother products. And it was 8 years ago.
Nothing funny on the entire Amazon? (Score:3)
Just a meta-comment on a couple of points.
Searched for funny comments. Not quite nothing, but the few that were moderated funny were barely.
Searched for "evil", but only referenced in a sig.
Searched the insightful comments. Not.
Searched for references to any of the books I've read about Amazon. Nothing.
Several hundred comments. The article is probably about to expire. Wanted to find some part of the discussion that was worth participating in. Failed.
Oh well. Capsule summary. I stopped doing business with Amazon many years ago because I felt they were abusing my privacy and my personal information. (Also no visible references to those two terms as of this writing.) Just went through a 16-month episode of Amazon spamming that was only stopped (if it has been stopped) by appeal to jeff@ himself. Yet in conclusion, I don't really blame Amazon for becoming evil. That's just the rules of the business game these decades. If a company fails to become sufficiently evil, then it gets destroyed like roadkill. (I think NetScape, Sun, Palm, and Nokia are examples of such destruction.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, you could also have titled this story "Amazon hires thousands of temporary workers desperate for jobs, giving them a chance at Christmas!"
But then, that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? 4,000 jobs in a small town is a massive benefit to those who need work, but I guess some would rather they sat at home and just collected a check from other people's wages instead.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a cousin who worked as a delivery driver for Amazon Now, contracted through some no-name third party company. He said he really liked it because in a typical day he made between $200 and $300 in wage+tips, but after the media did an "expose" on the fact that Amazon was treating them as contract-for-hire with no benefits, then suddenly he stopped getting work.
Nobody was forcing him to do that work, but whistleblowing like this likely did force him to stop.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
You had to over embellish with "tips", didn't you...
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Funny)
You had to over embellish with "tips", didn't you...
The fine article mentioned Scotland.
Scotland as you may or may not know is part of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland otherwise known as the "UK" for short. The UK is a short trip across the Atlantic Ocean which re refer to as "the Pond", right above this little consent that a certain NASCAR driver may call COMMUNIST but most of us know as Europe or Overbearing Money Grubbing Wankers... depending if you're sane or a UKIP voter.
Here in the UK we do not engage in this vulgar activity of "tipping" as we prefer to pay our workers a wage they can live on rather than relegating them to begging for scraps from the lords table... We did away with that nonsense centuries ago.
Of course, that being Scotland they will be fine if Amazon dropped off some Tennents and a few packs of fags.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience there is always somebody trying to camp in the parking lot to save money. This says nothing at all about the company or the job. Even at google there are people who want to live in the parking lot. It is also somewhat traditional to provide a place for employee camping, though unpopular these days.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. I worked at a place that made specialized data processing equipment. We had a shower so people could ride to work, say, or work out during lunch.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Indeed never presume to understand the reasons why people do something. We had an instrument technician who parked his caravan outside our plant when we hired him as a temporary worker. I asked him about it and he said it was easy. He was single, not attached to a location, had no expenses, and after doing it for under 2 years had enough money to buy a house in cash setting him up for a fantastic future life.
Here I am 8 years later with a mortgage.
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:3)
The article describe three tents outside the Amazon facility, one abandoned, one where the occupant say he's there out of convenience (the tent "was easier and cheaper than commuting from his home,"), and no word about the third.
We're talking about 2-3 workers out of several thousand temporary workers...that is a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the workforce.
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, we should thank Amazon for allowing workers to sleep in tents. They may freeze but they won't starve!
Corporations are great and always have the health and well being of their employees as top priority.
A temporary job where you freeze at night is much better than no job at all. We thank Amazon for providing great temporary jobs. This makes Amazon great again.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we should thank Amazon for allowing workers to sleep in tents.
Once an employee leaves Amazon's premises it is none of Amazon's damn business what they do or don't do. They have no right to "allow" or "prohibit" their employees from using, or not using, any sleeping arrangement.
Disclaimer: When I first moved to Silicon Valley, I lived in a van for two years.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Funny)
Down by the river?
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of 4,000 workers, a newspaper managed to find three tents out in the woods, one of which they reported as apparently abandoned and the actual person in one tent made it clear he had a home elsewhere he could sleep in, but preferred to be closer to work to save on commuting costs.
Clearly Amazon is at fault for daring to provide someone employment. Probably the other 3,998 or so people they hired are just sleeping without tents because of their super low wages, right?
In most places (notably, non-prisons and without servant's quarters...), companies don't decide for and aren't responsible for their employees where and how they are allowed to live. That's up to the employee to decide for themselves.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Commuting cost is because Amazon shuttle is expensive. Amazon pay people salary and then charges them a lot to get to and from work. The commuting cost is not independent of Amazon.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah! Why don't these losers just stroll over to the Job Forest, where jobs grow on trees in wondrous abundance?
Re: (Score:2)
The job that grows on trees is called Hunter or Gatherer, and unless you have the right family tree it is generally banned, though in some cases you can buy a permit during a season.
Within what is available for individual commercial harvesting with a permit there is often 5 or 6 weeks of the year when money can be made, depending on your region.
And subsistence foraging is difficult or impossible if you're not allowed to live on the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's nearly Christmas, so time to being out the Christmas themed quotes.
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, they could work in a book shop for example.
Re:They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry but companies aren't allowed to operate like that in the EU or the UK.
Apparently they are.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the export of US culture and values - first you watch our movies, then you follow our politics... careful, it's highly contagious.
Re: (Score:2)
That probably explains why my RERFX investment is performing like shit compared to everything else I have. I think I'll probably trade it for DODGX, or maybe something Asian based just to maintain a foreign holding.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the type of selfish bullshit that is threatening the US and the whole world right now. Thanks, jackass. You're the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies are forced to track each employee and where they live, and what they spend their money on in the EU and the UK? Interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's weird how lefties hate Walmart for the same thing, but love amazon.
Hating Walmart is party-line obedience to union leaders. Plus classism. Amazon hasn't become a big focus for union organizers yet, and Amazon employs many members of the progressive tribe in The Seattle area. So they get a pass, for now.
None of this has ever had anything to do with actually caring about the employees of these companies.
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate Wally World and I've never even been in a union.
Don't tell people what their issues really have to do with. Instead, listen to them and they will tell you. In my experience even those union guys are capable of independent thought and can determine what their motivations are.
People aren't going to hate Amazon because the customer experience is pretty good, and they rely on the government to enforce basic labor standards. It isn't something people are very interested in on a per-company basis. Whereas issues with big box stores replacing numerous industries with many fewer jobs is more of a community issue, where the only solution is for the people who care to shop more locally and preserve some fraction of the smaller businesses.
The one time I did shop at Wally World, we received a wedding gift of a $50 gift card from there. Which was easy to solve, we bought a gift for a holiday charity event.
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:5, Informative)
I've met a lot of people that have trouble wrapping their head around how I feel about unions.
Unions are a glorious thing that have helped a lot of workers. I wish I had an engineers union like the Germans do that fight for all workers in it.
The UAW one of the most corrupt, bloated, useless organizations I've ever had to deal with.
Re: (Score:3)
I've met a lot of people that have trouble wrapping their head around how I feel about unions.
Unions are a glorious thing that have helped a lot of workers. I wish I had an engineers union like the Germans do that fight for all workers in it.
The UAW one of the most corrupt, bloated, useless organizations I've ever had to deal with.
A lot of people understand.
Especially outside the US where we can separate the concept of labour unionism and the current sad state of some unions.
I agree and support the idea of labour unionism, it has bought us many advances and was instrumental in the rise of the working middle class. What I cant agree with are 6 union secretaries sitting around a table at a Chinese restaurant deciding things for everyone else.
Most of the above quote can be attributed to Australian politician and columnist, Mark
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultra conservative write Ben Stein wrote this after visiting the Walmart in Idaho
“These were enormous sallow men and women, grotesquely obese teenagers, horribly tattooed women in sun dresses at 10 p.m. These were the Jukes and the Kallikaks. Their RV’s were parked in the Walmart parking lot. Terrifying, especially in Walmart’s ultra-bright jail line-up lights”
Now tell us again what Liberals do?
I suppose I can take your post and extrapolate and say conservatives indulge themselves in classism by rampant over generalizing and attempting to describe what liberals do in which in reality is what they do.... AKA hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, once in a while someone will say something mean-spirted and you'll look expecting to see yet another leftist hater, but you'll be surprised to see a non-leftist. How about we stop giving haters a pass because they're on our team?
Re: (Score:2)
Inbreeding doesn't really limit itself to poor meth heads.
https://pmchollywoodlife.files... [wordpress.com]
https://fabiusmaximus.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
http://telegrafi.com/wp-conten... [telegrafi.com]
And the kicker:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/... [thesun.co.uk]
Re: They could always work elsewhere. (Score:2)
Extra points if you get one... with bad teeth
Shouldn't the extra points be for spotting the atypical ones??
Economic fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
if you're not paid enough, find another job!
A 2nd-order economic fallacy: "There are an infinite number of jobs".
It is a derivative of the base, first order fallacy: "infinite consumption".
We will always have infinite consumption because of ever increasing population (see: Malthus) and ever increasing wants and needs. No matter how much food or shelter you have, you will always want more. It's basic human nature.
Infinite consumption demands infinite production, which necessarily requires infinite labor.
If you're not paid enough, go find another job!
It's not as if they are in limited supply...
Re: (Score:2)
With automation we're faced with a choice: share their production, or let the poor... go away to wherever people go when all the land is owned and people aren't allowed to subsist anywhere. Wherever that is.
That is the choice, Star Trek, or a small number of people living in defended bubble cities with police that go out and make sure any surviving commoners aren't trying to build homes or farms on any of the land.
Increasing productivity is only "good" for most people if society modifies the economic formul
Re: (Score:3)
Look I am turning quite conservative myself after studying economics. However, unlimited consumption is a fallacy. THe Great Depression proved this as economists at the time assumed people would simply lower their salaries and products would deflate and people would then buy again and all would go up and be good soon.
That didn't happen as the invisible hand amplified the problem where people and business consumed less and cut back which caused them to lay off workers who in turn cut back in a horrible vicio
Re: (Score:2)
The whoosh is strong with this one.
It always amazes me how some are so astoundingly oblivious that they can post "just find another job!", as if it might never have even occurred to the person to consider something different. It invariably never seems to occur to them that, shitty as that person's job is, if they're still doing it then all the other options must be even worse.
Good luck (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, in the face of a
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I so wish I had mod points. I wish more people would realize that jobs have become a zero sum game to the corps.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to worry about silly inanities like "what are you going to do," then in the short term you should consider: The stock market is shooting up up up in a situation where economists are predicting gloom. What does that mean? That means there is going to be a boom before the bust, baby!
Get ready, history's biggest bubble is coming! The billionaires are running the show. Find a way to dip a cup in, and then get out and keep your little pile of loot for the dark days ahead.
Re:poor workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Negotiate? How much power do you think an individual has as compared with the corporation currently? There is no negotiation... you take it or leave it.
Re: (Score:2)
"POTUS Trump will fix this."
By not letting Amazon Scotland build a warehouse near any of his golf courses?
Re: (Score:2)
Minimum wage is even more fragile. Try to pressure Amazon into paying a livable salary and they'll just proportionately shift towards automation. Or find a country of even more desperate peasants. Bleeding GDP doesn't matter, the margin is happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's policies won't touch Scotland. He can't even get rid of the windmills that are an eyesore from his golf course(s).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For the sake of argument let's say these folks are being paid the Living Wage. 8.25 X 60 = 495. If you get paid every other week that is 990 gross pay.
Let's assume these people are working full-time so 26 paychecks X 990 = 25,740. Based on this tax rate guide [gcu.ac.uk] that means they pay a 20% tax on their wages. However, they get the first 10,600 as a personal allowance. So, 20% of 15,140 (25
Re: It says they get paid minimum wage (Score:4, Interesting)
26.5% of salary as rent and you are complaining? Try living in the Bay area. Here is a sample Budget
$125000 a year for a mid level person with a family.
=$10500 a month Gross
=$9500 a month after Social security and Medicare
=$8800 a month after federal taxes
=$8000 a month after California taxes and SDi
=$7000 a month after Health Insurance premiums for a family of 4
=$6000 a month after 401K (retirement contribution as there are no pensions)
=$6000 a month take home
=$3000 a month after rent (Rent for a crappy 2 Bedroom apt is $3000 and can go all the way upto $6000 in silicon valley)
=$2500 a month after utilities (no the 3000 a month does not include utilities or renters insurance)
=$2000 a month after Car payments,Insurance and Gas
Now family of 4 eating 3 times a day for 30 days a month = 360 meals. Assuming a $5 per person/meal =$1800
=$200 a month after food
With that $200 you have to buy school supplies, car repairs, any other emergency.
Pretty much the only entertainment you can afford is TV and a little eating out once in a while.
No savings for childrens college
No savings for replacing car when it breaks down so next car will also have to be on loan
No savings for saving a downpayment to actually buy a house
No savings for if you lose your job. Plus if you are working on a visa you wont get unemployment even though you pay into Social Security.
No scope for signing up children to extra classes so if your public school is messing up they are screwed as you cant pay for college. Their only hope is scholarships
No scope for getting a divorce if your marriage is not working out as you cannot afford to pay alimony, child support and rent on 2 places.
Do note 50% of take home goes to rent and another 10% to utilities so the basic cost of keeping a roof over your head is 60% of take home.
Re: (Score:2)
If true, then I applaud them for not comparing apples to oranges.
I'm highly skeptical though. Surely if a person cares about both they'll mix and muddle them all together! Intentionally.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The original linked article only says 'bitterly cold', which depending on the person could be anything below room temperature. The slashdot summary may have looked at the area weather forecast, and says lows INTO the 30s, which could just mean 39F. Then you have a poster reminding readers that 32F = 0C, now we hit freezing. The latest number thrown out is -2C (around 28F), now it's below freezing.
Isn't it fun how numbers change so quickly?