Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Almighty Buck United States

Amazon Now Has More Than 341,000 Employees -- Added 110,000 People Last Year (geekwire.com) 114

Amazon added more than 110,000 employees during the past year, topping 341,000 people as of the end of 2016 thanks largely to a significant increase in the Seattle-based tech giant's network of fulfillment centers around the world and further expansion of its businesses in several overseas new markets. From a report: Amazon employed just 32,000 people globally five years ago. Amazon's net growth of more than 110,000 people during the past year almost rivals Microsoft's total employment of 120,000 people as of Dec. 31. That comparison of Microsoft and Amazon isn't apples-to-apples given the differences in their businesses, but it gives a sense of the scope of Amazon's employment base. Amazon employs about 40,000 people in Washington state, compared to 45,000 for Microsoft. Amazon doesn't show any signs of slowing down. The company said previously that it plans to add another 100,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. over the next 18 months.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Now Has More Than 341,000 Employees -- Added 110,000 People Last Year

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I got out of Amazon stock last quarter after seeing the explosive growth in the payroll. Clearly Amazon has focused too much on hiring to fulfill logistics needs rather than the deployment of automated technology. People are very expensive, especially compared to the low value of material handling work. I know Amazon warehouses are already highly-automated, but Bezos really dropped the ball last year in hiring so many - and many of us investors wondered if all of that hiring was politically-motivated rather

  • by Anonymous Coward

    As one who worked security for an Amazon warehouse for a while, they have some of the worst employee turnover I've seen.

    Apart from a few who stick because they can get nowhere else, most go within three months and won't ever return.

  • Making more people suffer each year.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The real question is this: When you consider how many jobs were lost to Amazon as Amazon grew larger and created new jobs, was it an overall net increase or an overall net decrease?

    • Amazon won by being more efficient than the companies it wiped out. That frequently means they use fewer employees or pay less. It's impossible to say, but I suspect Amazon has caused a net loss in jobs.

      Counter to that though, it has probably made, for those of us still with decent-paying jobs, an increase in our quality of life and lowering our cost of living. So bad for some, good for others.

  • by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Friday February 03, 2017 @10:43AM (#53794997)
    I'm not sure I'd bet on 100,000 more jobs in the next 18 months until I see how things go after Trump closes the door on cheap imports from China with heavy tariffs.
    • It's fascinating to watch how both sides are hypocritical and have flip-flopped their arguments on this.

      The left which used to argue that cheap Chinese imports were killing American jobs, is now arguing that ending those cheap Chinese imports is going to kill American jobs.

      The right which used to argue that cheap Chinese imports gave people more money to spend thus creating more American jobs, is now arguing that ending those cheap Chinese imports will preserve and create American jobs.

      You can't ha
      • by Anonymous Coward

        It's not flip-flopping at all. You are ignoring the passage of time and incorrectly treating all jobs as the same. Let's try this:

        Cheap Chinese imports killed American manufacturing jobs. Companies adapted and hired mininum-wage workers to handle the imported goods. Now, ending those cheap imports will eliminate many of those newer mininum-wage jobs. However, it is not a given that the manufacturing jobs will return. And thanks to automation we know they won't.

      • It's fascinating to watch how both sides are hypocritical and have flip-flopped their arguments on this..

        It's probably because this isn't a black and white issue- both sides are correct. Yes, a lot of things are made in China BECAUSE it's cheaper to make them over there. This does result in lack of American jobs.

        On the other hand. Manufacturing jobs tend to be lower wage and unappealing for most people. It's better than being unemployed, but there's a reason more evolved economies tend to move away from them and why China is, itself, trying to move away from a manufacturing dominated economy.

        Also, putting

  • What would be interesting is to first separate the number of exempt employees (salaried) from hourly workers, then find the total number of hours worked by the hourly workers during a week. Divide the total number of hours worked by hourly workers by 40 - the number of hours considered full time employment in the US - to get the number of full time equivalent hourly workers (FTE). This could also be done for calendar quarters to smooth out variations. This might be a better way of describing it's total hour
    • I see that more as a problem with the definition of full time employment. Because all sorts of new legal requirements kick in at 40 hours/week, companies will seek to keep employees just under 40 hours. (Actually, based on the few laws I ran into with hourly workers, I think most requirements kick in at 30 hours, but I digress...)

      If you instead gradually ramp up those legal requirements, then there's no spike in employee cost as they reach 40 hours, and thus no disincentive for companies to have 40 hou
      • I'm not really talking about the cost of the employees, either in pay or cost of benefits. Obviously the cost to an employer depends on possible benefits and at most places benefits are available to employees who work more than a certain number of hours per week. Amazon has said they're going to hire 100,000 employees this year. How many hours are they going to work? That number sounds great, but if the average employee works 10 hours per week, that's really only the work of 25,000 full time people. That 10
  • I don't know personally, but have spoken to more than a few of their employees who claim that Amazon has a huge reputation for abusing, overworking, and underpaying their employees. I guess its more important to build that mars lander, than to treat employees like humans.

    • What does abusing mean here? Are they beating their workers with sticks? I'm not sure why an adult would work somewhere when they are being allegedly treated like that.
      • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        Probably the same reason people find themselves living with people that treat them like shit. Sometimes they just feel stuck. You have a job, benefits suck, hours suck, they force you to work overtime and not claim the time for fear of losing the job (alleged by a 5 people i know). You're paycheck to paycheck, you've got a family to support, your spouse also works but the two incomes still barely keep the bills paid. You're so strapped that you even go in sick for fear of missing a days pay will put you sho

    • by Hodr ( 219920 )

      I guess it's all in who you know, and what their job is. A coworker of mine recently (well 6 months ago) left to work for Amazon. Got almost a 50% bump in his already exorbitant salary and every time we talk he can't stop gushing about how great his new office is and how amazing the benefits/hours/etc. are.

      • by e3m4n ( 947977 )

        must be, the people I know work at a distribution center nearby. They describe the climate as walmart on pms. Maybe just the corp headquarters is fun?

User hostile.

Working...