E-commerce Is Concentrating Jobs, Not Killing Them (axios.com) 105
A reader shares a report: The growing popularity of online shopping has hit traditional retailers hard, culminating in a spate of retail bankruptcies and store closures in recent years. But according to a new analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the retail apocalypse has actually created nearly as many jobs as it has killed. Though e-commerce and other non-store retailers have hired nearly as many workers as traditional retailers have cut, these new jobs are much more geographically concentrated.
not so bad (Score:2, Insightful)
See its not so bad if you look at the numbers in *just* *the* *right* way....
Nice if you already live in those areas. Not so good if you dont.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so good if you dont.
Well that settles it then. We'll just have to try to put the genie back in the bottle. As we all know it's basically impossible for people to move to where there are jobs available and we know from American history that such a thing has never previously happened. Besides, the Constitution probably forbids it anyways.
Re: (Score:3)
Not many people are going to move across the country for a packing job in a warehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the past infant mortality was double what it is now and if you got rust in a cut you'd probably die.
Yay past! Past FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
In the past, you would have had to pick your own straw to make that strawman.
In the 1970s people used to move for jobs all the time. Why do you think people cannot do it today? You don't want to ship your 60" luxury TV? Too afraid to buy a $200 bus ticket to cross the country for a new job?
It IS so much easier to just bitch and moan on the internet, after all...
In the 1970's people were moved by their employers for growth opportunities. Now if the company is paying the moving bill, it is a lateral move to a location is that is cheaper for the employer but is not necessarily desirable for the employee. The sort of job changes referenced in the article are between companies. The old company lays you off. The new company would rather not pay to interview or move someone from out of the area. Self-moving to a new area in hopes of finding a job there is a risky
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But domination by the cites is undemocratic, even if 90% of the people live in them! Farmers farmers farmers!
Re: (Score:2)
So they should get 17 votes each? How many should sewer workers get?
Immigration (Score:2)
As we all know it's basically impossible for people to move to where there are jobs available
"Impossible" is hyperbole, but retraining and moving for a job is a substantial sudden expense, especially for someone with a social skills disability. Is it better to move before finding the job or vice versa?
Besides, the Constitution probably forbids [moving for a job] anyways.
Correct. It grants the Congress power to set criteria for allowing immigrants to work in the United States. This affects someone who resides out of the United States but whose job was "concentrated" to the United States.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously... the jobs are not stable.
One of the articles reporting on Amazon jobs (for example) is retirees living in RV's traveling seasonally from amazon job to amazon job. It's good for Amazon- the jobs are not part time and have no benefits. It's good for the RV owners- they were going to migrate anyway and have retirement incomes so it's extra cash. It's not really a sustainable model long term.
And Amazon is working on packing robots now. They are funding it. Amazon is a very short distance from
Re: (Score:2)
"lies, damned lies, and statistics"
- possibly by benjamin disraeli by way of mark twain.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even so nice for most who live in those areas. An elite few get high-paying jobs, everyone else ends up on the catching side of gentrification.
Nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes but none of those people working the retail store have those skills. More, most of them do not have either the scholastic background or, in some cases, the raw intelligence to master those skills.
Some of the people who use to work in those retail stores will never find another retail, or any other kind of job. Similar to the miners and steel workers who have experienced long term unemployment and have no prospects of ever finding work they are qualified for.
Re: (Score:2)
Is they're a huge difference between theirs and there's?
Re: (Score:2)
They could always work for Trump. I hear he loves the poorly educated.
Re:Nonsense! (Score:5, Informative)
Not only that, but the article (the original one, not the summary slashdot copied almost word-per-word) says:
If wages are a rough proxy of employers’ demand for certain skillsets, then these two categories of jobs would seem to have different skill requirements: in 2012, the average online retail job paid slightly over $50,000, while the average department store job paid just $20,500. By 2016, the average wage for nonstore workers exceeded $59,000, while the average wage for department store workers remained roughly the same. Part of this pay gap reflects the fact that department store jobs are more likely to be part-time. Nevertheless, the difference is staggering, suggesting that nonstore retailers demand a different type of worker than department stores do. So, even if laid-off department store workers were willing and able to move to, say, King County, they might lack the skillsets sought by e-tailers.
The amount of jobs stayed the same, but the people who got axed from brick-and -mortar stores are the ones that would never be able to "switch jobs" and become e-market employees. Higher-skilled workers got more jobs, while lower-skilled workers got the shaft.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. At the same time this sends a strong signal to the next generation of workers about what skills are going to be needed in the future.
As a country, we need to come to terms that technological change within the timespan of a generation is going to change the kind of skills we need. The solution is not to stifle change or to throw those workers to the curb, it's going to be to accept it and to provide a social safety net so that those folks left behind can live in dignity.
Re: (Score:2)
Retraining sometimes ends up being a colossal waste of money and time for all parties.
You'll hear stories about 50-60 year old folks that sit through retraining only to get a check, with no intent of starting a brand new career that will last a mere 10-15 years. So we're paying them, paying the school and the teachers and they will openly and honestly tell you they are just there to punch the clock.
The less time you have left in your working life the less logical is it to invest in skills. There is no amoun
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly won't happen in the USA, where the only time that someone actually care about their neighbour is when both houses have been destroyed by a hurricane.
Remember, social assistance just makes people lazy and more likely to use drugs (or whatever bullshit politicians have invented recently).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it sends a strong signal about what skill are currently needed. There's nothing permanent about those requirements.
E.g., currently there's a strong need for truck drivers of various different types. in 5-10 years, 15 at most, we can predict that there will be a strong oversupply in that market. But don't think truck drivers are unique, they are only one of the larger segments that will be affected.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what the fuck you've been smoking but holy shit that's strong!
There are so many things awfully wrong in your entry that I don't even know where to start.
Our ongoing technological ascension continues to create a world where higher cognitive abilities are required in order to thrive
No, it doesn't. It's not even valid for the whole USA, let alone the entire world. Out of the whole world population, maybe 10% live in a technologically-advanced society, the rest are decades behind (centuries in some cases). Owning a smartphone doesn't count, but even if you'd go as far as that, the number of smartphone users worldwide is e
Re: (Score:2)
You're clearly a communist Hillarytard. GP is clearly right.
Look at Trump. Look what a smart decision he made when he chose his parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep smoking that weird shit, mate.
The stupid will always win, simply because there's a lot more of them. You just live in a bubble which distorts reality.
Re: (Score:3)
You're really complaining that low-paid jobs were replaced with higher-paid jobs? Income inequality levels and a near zero unemployment rate tell you that there are plenty of low paying jobs out there, it's those middle and higher income jobs we need more of.
Re: (Score:2)
Not complaining (I'm not affected :)) but stating that the study ignores the fact that people who got higher paid jobs are DIFFERENT from the people who lost the lower paid jobs. i'm glad that some people found higher paid jobs in e-commerce, but at the same time I realize that some of those who lost the lower paid jobs are now living on benefits and that reduces economic development.
Re: (Score:2)
>Higher-skilled workers got more jobs, while lower-skilled workers got the shaft.
good.
The only thing missing is UBI
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be saying that, and it's also saying there are the same number of workers, just in a different location. This seems unbelievable.
The reason it seems unbelievable is that this would means costs would increase, and companies don't work that way. The most likely reason is that this study is bullshit. Probably there are a large number of people who lost their jobs that weren't counted for some reason or other. There are other possible reasons, but none that I have thought of have made me trust t
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds an awful lot like "corporate speak." It sounds like an HR buzzword. "Oh, we're just concentrating jobs ...."
With all new, concentrated e-Commerce power! It couldn't possibly be related to this [youtube.com].
Re:Nonsense! (Score:4, Interesting)
In an eCommerce setup, the salesperson is totally bypassed
That is a feature, not a bug.
I don't believe this study has any merit whatsoever.
I agree that it seems implausible, but it was done by the Federal Reserve. What motivation would they have to lie or distort?
Hundredandeleventyonegodwin!!! (Score:2)
It's a valid meaning. Concentration, as in ~ camp.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in bumfuck (Score:4, Interesting)
The jobs are geographically concentrated in the middle of nowhere, where few people actually live, because real estate is cheap. This leads to more commuting, where retail jobs are located near where people hang their hats.
Re: (Score:3)
The presence of high-tech jobs in an area drives people to live there, which bestows upon the area a thriving economy and rising costs of real estate.
e-tail doesn't create as many high-tech jobs as it destroys retail jobs. Most of the jobs it creates are in shipping, which pay just as shit as retail.
Concentrate, and then eliminate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. Those of us who live in rural environs tend to shop online for things we otherwise cannot get without spending 2-3 hours behind the wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And people forget that stores only tend to carry the "popular" items.
For example, wife and I buy unlocked smart phones so we are not locked to a single carrier. We have bought our phones from Newegg and Amazon and gotten our cases from there too - we didn't necessarily want whatever Apple/Samsung/LG and the carriers were pushing.
Wonderful, except when it's not... (Score:2)
If you don't happen to live next to Amazon's new distribution center and work in retail? Too bad for you.
Eventually we are going to really miss that corner store and rue the day we decided that next day deliver works just fine.
Tell it to... (Score:1)
The folks who lost the jobs where they aren't now concentrated.
They still have the problem of finding new work in a poorer economic setting because profits from these work concentration sites are not flowing to small towns.
And geographic options are decreasing for people who remain employable.
I want the progress. I also want to see us take care of each other while we make progress. Greater acceptance of telecommuting will help. Maybe we still need better tools for getting connected (the Jedi hologram room w
Re: (Score:2)
Concentration allows for more "efficiency" (Score:3)
Meaning the tail of the income distribution becomes thinner and thinner. That's assuming what the article claims is true.
What's the problem with the income tail becoming too thin? The premise is that this is one nation and everyone is expected if the need arises to spill their blood for the country equally. Somehow when too many are struggling too much a different sentiment arises.
That said I believe the nation will self correct, and that we are on the path to doing so.
Very logical (Score:3)
Technology doesn't kill jobs, it creates them. ALWAYS. But the new jobs require more skill, so there is a lag while people retrain.
200 years ago there was no such thing as a regularly paid professional sports. The closest we came was the roman gladiators that received endorsement contracts and occasionally a retired gladiator (usually a slave that had won his freedom) was paid large sums of money to return to the ring.
Now we pay our athletes huge sums of money. Not counting the agents and all the other related new jobs.
From the day we became farmers instead of merely hunter gathers, Jobs come from the desire for things, not the needs of society.
And human desire is boundless, not limited by a set amount of food, clothing, etc. Give us all a sex robot and we will demand two - for a threesome of course.
Rest assured, trust in human GREED it will never run out, there will always be jobs.
Re: (Score:1)
Entertainers leverage technology and are able to reach millions using it. They don't use a small stage anymore.
If the basic needs are met, what I would consider shelter, security, food and water, I do agree that entertainment is a bottomless pit of money however; you can only wear so many Rolexes at once. The jobs that form the basis of entertainment can not possibly sustain a substantial workforce on their own because they themselves work on the principle of entertaining as many people as possible already.
Re: (Score:1)
human desire is boundless
That doesn't seem to be backed by psychological studies, or even a basic study of humanity. If it was boundliess then rich people would spend all their money on gold drinking bowls for each of their 500 pets, but they don't. And desire it also limited by morals and laws.
Dont count jobs, count payroll (Score:2)
Not sure this is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
This would explain Amazon's proposal to build a second "headquarters" that's been having every low-cost municipality begging for the chance to host it lately. Maybe they want to continue poaching AWS talent from Microsoft in Seattle and Google in SV, and send all the "B players" in the retail division to some cheap locale. The problem with e-commerce vs. traditional retail is that all your employment funnels up into warehouses and back-office campuses, and the jobs in every smallish area of the country dry up. And over time, those back-office campus jobs will get eliminated as well, so I'm guessing this consolidation is temporary. An example I personally know of is the company that manages my retirement account. Headquarters is in Boston, and I'm sure that's where they have all the super-smart traders, fund managers and executives. But my statements and customer service calls from from some back office in Dallas.
The problem I see in general with the labor market is that the entry level positions are being eliminated, and there's a big gap between zero experience and expert in terms of requirements for jobs. Retail used to fill that gap at the low end, and entry-level corporate work used to fill the need to soak up all the generic college students with a generic BS in management. I remember 20 years ago seeing people who partied their way to a degree doing as little work as possible just show up to group interviews senior year and get picked for some random corporate function. The world will be a very different place if the only entry level position is at Amazon's fulfillment center packing boxes 12 hours a day...in previous times these students I'm referring to would be able to become senior paper pushers, then managers and directors and have a good life. When you kill that career ladder for anyone except those who can write web front ends in Node.js, you're setting society up for a huge disruption.
Am I advocating make-work? Yes, I think I am because the alternative of massive unemployment is not something we're set up to deal with. If you live in one of the middle-tier cities (think places like Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte, SLC, etc.) you most likely have some huge company's back-office functions located there. Drive by their campuses sometime - they probably occupy one or more huge office buildings and employ thousands of people. Each one of those thousands of people is supporting a household, buying things, paying taxes and having kids. What will we do when every one of their jobs is eliminated either due to automation or offshoring?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easy answer: make-work. You even said it yourself.
There's a lot of liberal hand-wringing about setting up UBI (universal basic income, a.k.a. welfare on steroids) and how difficult it is to get conservatives to agree to it.
Instead, look to a different liberal concept: UBE: Universal Basic Employment. It's [wikipedia.org] been [wikipedia.org] done [wikipedia.org] before [wikipedia.org]. These were so successful that many of the things they built are still in use today. Everything from Hoover Dam, down to those bridges that are now crumbling and old, 80+ years later, to t
Strange use of statistics... (Score:3)
If you look at the first graph from 2012 to 2017 e-tail went from ~30 to ~45 billion USD while employment went from ~440k to ~570k. That's 50% growth with 30% more employees. And that's in a booming business sector where lots of new systems are being designed and rolled into production, what happens when you go more steady state? It would be interesting to ask Amazon how many they'd really need for a skeleton staff that did nothing but fill deliveries of existing products using current systems. And where it's going in 10-20 years, I mean you don't expect radical changes at the tipping point because if you waited that long you're way too late to the party. You begin at the tipping point or even before the tipping point because you'll have the biggest snowball when it starts tumbling downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the first graph from 2012 to 2017 e-tail went from ~30 to ~45 billion USD while employment went from ~440k to ~570k. That's 50% growth with 30% more employees.
That's not really surprising, what you are seeing is a productivity gain. They generated more revenue with fewer man hours of work. It's tempting to think of productivity from the perspective of "I can do the same work for less money". But business don't really think like that, they are looking to grow and expand not maintain the status quo. Business look at this as "I can generate more profit for the same expense". So the steady state is probably going to have more workers in total, but fewer workers per d
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really surprising, what you are seeing is a productivity gain. They generated more revenue with fewer man hours of work.
Which is essentially the opposite of what the article said which was that work moves from retail to e-tail, jobs more or less remain.
It's tempting to think of productivity from the perspective of "I can do the same work for less money". But business don't really think like that, they are looking to grow and expand not maintain the status quo. Business look at this as "I can generate more profit for the same expense".
Obviously, but generally they think of their business or their business model. Netflix wants streaming media and themselves to grow, they don't give a shit of broadcast or cable TV is in decline. If you go broad enough companies can rarely expand the market much, if you're talking about he whole *tail market the real wages are stagnant and most people can't spend more money th
Most distressing headline this week. (Score:1)
E-commerce Is Concentrating Jews, Not Killing Them
Look, I'm not saying E-commerce is literally Hitler but I don't like where this is going. ;)
FYI I work with small e-comerce clients (Score:5, Interesting)
Their servers are located god knows where in some data center. Only 3 live in the same state I do.
I do a majority of my work remotely, from my home office or my office/work shop that is 2 miles from my home.
It is true, Amazon is having a large effect on things. And they are really hurting most small e-commerce sites, since Amazon skims 8%-15% off the top of every invoice total, which really hurts the smaller operators since Amazon takes a large chunk of what little margin there is on most items plus in order to get real visibility on Amazon you must use fulfilled by Amazon and they also charge an inventory management fee if you do that.
But if Amazon gets the sales volume up enough an Amazon store can work. But their user interface for managing your store truly sucks. And their master inventory system is a complete mess. And it is a constant battle with them as they re categorize your products from 8% commission groups to 15% commission groups and you spend a week or 2 arguing with them to get them changed back to the proper group. Then next month they will move some other inventory items to the 15% group. It is a mess, but a mess that is forced on more and more small e-commerce sites.
BTW That is why Amazon supports Internet Sales Taxes, They want to force small e-commerce sites to switch to Amazon Stores so they get first shot at skimming profit off the top of all sales.
Now getting back to how this relates to the article. These e-commerce sites need technical individuals to help them wade through the technical complexities if they really want to be successful. So there is a niche for tech outside of the high cost of living hubs. But it takes a different approach and a lot of work.
Now in the end Amazon "WILL/HAS" win/won. And individuals like me will need to find other niches that allow us to live where we want. But that is just the way of things
Re: (Score:2)
Then what IS the advantage? (Score:2)
If mail order isn't getting things done with less labor, then you wouldn't expect the prices to be any better. And if the prices aren't better, then the reason consumers are choosing it must be convenience or some other quality.
Hmm. Yeah, actually, I can believe that. Fits my experience, anyway. Score 1 anecdote point.
So? (Score:2)
Retail is Killing Itself (Score:3)
No, Amazon isn’t killing retail. Retail is slitting its own throat and has been for over a decade now. They pay their workers minimum wage for the most part and wonder why they don’t get quality people (in other words they’re getting what they’re paying for). They over work their good employees to the point of burnout or they cut hours on employees forcing them to get jobs elsewhere to make ends meet. And they wonder why they can’t get or keep anyone.
Look at their “marketing” too. It’s all about sale after sale after sale and coupon upon coupon upon coupon. On top of that is the attempt to chain you in with a high interest store charge card too (because they get a kickback from the bank). Nothing of course about how their stores are well stocked and constantly replenished. Nothing about the friendly, ever-present sales staff available to help you, etc.
But Amazon has just become a scapegoat for retail’s own failures. Sure Amazon has more inventory and a bigger network of shipping/warehousing than most stores, but that advantage is negated by the fact that in a more urgent cases Amazon simply cannot deliver. Fixing dinner and the appliance you need dies? Can’t run out to Amazon.Com and buy a new one but I can at a retail store. My Bluetooth headphones died the other day and I needed a pair for today so I went to Best Buy and got a pair because Amazon wouldn’t have been able to get a pair delivered to me before tomorrow.
You know what drives me to Amazon? When I walk into a store and they don’t have what I need. Oh sure they’ll order it for me but it’ll take a week to get there versus the two days Amazon can get it to me (and this was before Prime). A while back the video card on my computer died so I went to Best Buy’s site and all current generation GeForce cards were online only even though it was 6+ months after release. My local store did not have them nor any store within a 50 mile radius.
Re: (Score:2)
also means the death of small retail business (Score:2)
They're mostly shit jobs (Score:2)
And salaries? (Score:2)
The summary didn't seem to mention anything about wages vs. cost of living in the jobs replaced vs. the jobs created.
And that's assuming I believe their study.
US focus? (Score:2)
I wonder if the conclusions are the same for US and wordwide
Many big e-commerce businesses are US based and they sell goods offshore. Did we replaced non-US brick-and-mortar retail jobs by US e-commerce jobs?