Abhorrent Amazon - Amazon's Aggressive Anti-Union Video leaks

[Mihle]

33 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i actually have no idea how much he or the others donate, but that was not my point (the donation ranking), the fact is that he donates.  2 bilions is a lot, even if of course is small change to him.

Bill gates have donated a LOT more than 2 billion. Same with another billionaire that work with him I think.

Also, JK Rowling might not have donated close to that amount, but compared to the money she has, she has donated a lot more.

[ZacoAttaco]

deleted - almost got involved in politics on the internet, close call.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, ZacoAttaco said:

To be fair, in Australia, we don't really have Amazon fully, they've sort of half entered the market so I don't know as much firsthand about the company as others.

Australia is a 50/50 ground for many UIS companies, Starbucks went down the toilet royal while Gloria jeans was a smashing success.  The analysis say that is because Gloria jean looked at Australian culture before setting up shop and starbucks tried to rubber stamp the US model not realising that we have had a strong cafe/coffee culture since the 60's and don't much like cheap tasting overpriced coffee. 

 

Why Amazon are not moving fast is likely due but not limited to other things like minimum wage, fair work and consumer laws.   The other thing about Australia is we love a company that makes us feel good about our culture and what we are doing,  that means not only does the product have to be good, but the company has to be putting back into the local economy and seen as a local boy.  We don't much like strangers around here.   That's why bunnings worked and masters went arse up.  I imagine it is hard for Amazon to look like a local guy when it's entirely online and overseas owned.

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I don't have an issue with the concept of unions, just their typical implementation.  Many times (such as the auto works unions, which have been brought up previously in this thread), the unions became so power hungry that they nearly drive the companies into bankruptcy, such as with GM.  I also have an issue with jobs where it's mandatory to join a union.  I don't believe that should ever be a mandatory thing.  Ever.  School teachers are one such example, where you're not permitted to teach unless you're a union member.  I am vehemently opposed to any such compulsory systems.

Not sure if you're referring to Canadians or not, but I'll answer as an American.  For us, it's not so much a hatred of taxes - even the Constitution includes a clause for Congress to receive taxes to fund government - it's how much they take and the garbage they waste it on.  Out last pResident literally doubled our national debt from ~$10 Trillion to ~$20 Trillion in his 2 terms.  That's a lot of debt to accrue in only 8 years, and the burden is on us and future generations to pay it off; and still the worthless "representatives" in Congress don't take measures to actually cut spending.  Their idea of "cutting" is to reduce how much they increase it (so instead of 10% increase, they'll only do 5% increase ).

 

Hope that clears up some of your confusion about our aversion to taxes.  Of course, some of it also goes back to the founding of this country, wherein the very first - and most famous - protest, was the dumping of tea due to unjust taxation.  It's part of our culture.

A perfect explanation of both things, I think.

 

3 hours ago, Mihle said:

Huge corporations usually have less people working for them compared to the company's profit/revenue. (Depends what type of company ofc).

 

You know what would help create more smaller and medium sized companies rather than huge ones?

Give benefits to the smaller ones and take stuff from the huge ones to compensate.

 

(If I remember right, medium sized companies was the best at workers compared to revenue/profits)

 

I am all for that.

Agreed completely.

[Syntaxvgm]

13 hours ago, LinusTech said:

 

I have a personal policy that goes a little something like this: “I will never convince someone to work at Linus Media Group. Think you’re too good? Don’t like it? Get the fuck out.”

 

 

Any time I do an interview/tour of a place that spend a lot of time talking about how much fun hey have, pointing out their 7 ping pong tables and their game consoles or whatever, I nope the fuck out of there. 

[maartendc]

Kind of interesting this thread got into the whole "super liberal free market" versus "government regulation and welfare-state" debate.

 

Fact of the matter is, we are living in a time where corporations are getting bigger and bigger, and consolidating their power. Corporations are either merging with each other, or buying each other. Disney buying Fox media, United Airlines and US Airways merging, AT&T buying Time Warner, Amazon buying Whole foods, etc. etc. If you happen to work in one of those industries, these monopolies are a big problem.

 

We don't live in a time anymore where you can "just quit" and just get a job at a competitor company if you don't like what your employer is doing. Especially if you are in a low-skill field. If there is no competition in the consumer market, there is also no competition in the labor market. Let's say you work as an engineer for Comcast, and you don't like their work practices. You can go work for AT&T or Google Fiber I guess. What if AT&T and Google and Comcast were to merge (unlikely at this point)? Where would you go? Or what if all 3 companies decide they will all have the same shitty work ethics? 

 

These companies are now big and dominant enough that some lower-skilled workers have few other options to get employment. Live in a rural/remote area and don't like working at Walmart? Too bad, they drove all the other stores in your area out of business. Don't like working at the Amazon fulfillment center? Too bad, there are no other retailers left in your area. Either put up with it or move.

 

This time calls for a serious revisit of government regulation over corporations, minimum wages, job security and protection of unionization. It is sorely needed as evidenced by labor practices from companies like Amazon, Walmart, etc.

 

Unfortunately, people voting with their wallets isn't working out so well.. It is time we vote with our votes, and our governments start regulating. Perhaps a cap on the size of corporations in certain industries before they are forced to break into smaller entities is in order?

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

Fact of the matter is, we are living in a time where corporations are getting bigger and bigger, and consolidating their power. Corporations are either merging with each other, or buying each other. Disney buying Fox media, United Airlines and US Airways merging, AT&T buying Time Warner, Amazon buying Whole foods, etc. etc. If you happen to work in one of those industries, these monopolies are a big problem.

There will always be periods of peaks and valleys in this matter.  IBM used to be the major power in the computer field (and the primary reason x86 became the dominant architecture), now they're just a blip on the radar for the vast majority of people.  Following the trends throughout the decades/centuries, you can see it time and again.  On occasion the government has to step in and force the split of an overly monopolistic company, but it will happen naturally on its own most of the time.

 

This is nothing new, and like before it will pass.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

46 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

On occasion the government has to step in and force the split of an overly monopolistic company, but it will happen naturally on its own most of the time.

Not necessarily. ATT, Northern Securities Corporation (railroads), American Tobacco Company, Standard Oil, etc, would have kept growing unchecked if they hadn't been broken up under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Amazon (and Bezos) definitely need some serious pruning.

[Jito463]

56 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Not necessarily. ATT, Northern Securities Corporation (railroads), American Tobacco Company, Standard Oil, etc, would have kept growing unchecked if they hadn't been broken up under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Amazon (and Bezos) definitely need some serious pruning.

I'm not understanding where you're disagreeing with me.  I specifically said that it happens from time to time.  A few examples does not a trend make.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

19 hours ago, LinusTech said:

 

So I see where you’re coming from, but unfortunately a meritocracy gets you exactly what you have - a lot of people who have shitty jobs for crappy pay and who think they deserve more because someone else has it. Guess they’ve never seen a bell curve. Not only does not everyone deserve average pay, HALF of people, by definition, don’t.

 

 

Not that it's central to the discussion, but it's way more than half the people: that would be true, as you say, for a Gaussian Bell distribution:

Spoiler

or any symmetric distribution for that matter. But the actual income distribution in the US (and everywhere else for that matters) is well approximated by a log-normal distribution:

Spoiler

Some people will argue that there's a problem with that, others will argue that it just reflects the underlying distribution of ability / productivity. Either way, the typical household will make below average income.

 

Then again, people usually has biased perceptions on what the income distribution is, and on what their particular position within the distribution is:

https://www.iwkoeln.de/__extendedmedia_resources/176927/index.html

 

If you live in an OECD country, you can do your own "expectations vs. reality" here:

http://www.compareyourincome.org/en

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

20 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

(...)

LinusGovTips?

 

Actually, looking at the T.I.P.S. acronym in OP, can you sue them?  

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not understanding where you're disagreeing with me.  I specifically said that it happens from time to time.  A few examples does not a trend make.

The trend for companies to become too large and powerful was the reason for the Sherman Antitrust Act. Also, I gave only a few examples. You need to review your American History.

[LinusTech]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

Not that it's central to the discussion, but it's way more than half the people: that would be true, as you say, for a Gaussian Bell distribution:

  Hide contents

or any symmetric distribution for that matter. But the actual income distribution in the US (and everywhere else for that matters) is well approximated by a log-normal distribution:

  Hide contents

Some people will argue that there's a problem with that, others will argue that it just reflects the underlying distribution of ability / productivity. Either way, the typical household will make below average income.

 

Then again, people usually has biased perceptions on what the income distribution is, and on what their particular position within the distribution is:

https://www.iwkoeln.de/__extendedmedia_resources/176927/index.html

 

If you live in an OECD country, you can do your own "expectations vs. reality" here:

http://www.compareyourincome.org/en

 

I was referring to the bell curve in the context of merit. It’s certainly true that the compensation curve doesn’t follow merit directly. Supply and demand. 

 

Speaking as an employer, high merit individuals are very appealing and worth paying much more for. As for low-mid merit individuals, they are basically worthless to me. I’d rather not hire at all and do it myself because some people outweigh their contributions through inefficiencies. 

 

With that said, I’m speaking in purely business terms. Just because I wouldn’t hire someone doesn’t mean I believe they are somehow less human and undeserving of a reasonable and SAFE standard of living, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to be treated fairly, etc.

 

I’ve already publicly said I support* guaranteed basic income for all citizens as a way forward in what is going to be an increasingly automated world. 

 

*though obviously it requires research/modeling and testing before such a system could reasonably be implemented. 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

9 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

I was referring to the bell curve in the context of merit. It’s certainly true that the compensation curve doesn’t follow merit directly. Supply and demand. 

 

The think is, merit (or at least ability) being unobservable, people will debate over whether compensation reflects merit, some arguing compensation accurately reflects their contribution to the business' output, and others arguing a number of frictions and inefficiencies lead to a gap between what merit and compensation look like.

 

14 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

 

Speaking as an employer, high merit individuals are very appealing and worth paying much more for. As for low-mid merit individuals, they are basically worthless to me. I’d rather not hire at all and do it myself because some people outweigh their contributions through inefficiencies. 

I think in your case it's even more extreme because of the nature of your business, which puts you in a "market for talent" of sorts: while you can trade off productivity with quantity in some jobs to a reasonable extent (think more slow construction workers vs fewer faster workers), you can't make good videos by just putting 300 mediocre hosts on them, or having them being edited in pieces by 300 mediocre editors. That leads to a more extreme "Zipf's law" distribution. just like it happens in sports, where the best player gets paid so much more than the others because there's a fixed number of players to be fielded, and at some point there's no better to spend money on improving the team, hence competition for that extra bit gets fierce - supply and demand, as you said   

[rcmaehl]

Thanks to that guy on the live stream that pointed out I didn't read the caption either... Absolutely clickbait image there Gizmodo....

[Trik'Stari]

12 hours ago, LinusTech said:

I was referring to the bell curve in the context of merit. It’s certainly true that the compensation curve doesn’t follow merit directly. Supply and demand. 

 

Speaking as an employer, high merit individuals are very appealing and worth paying much more for. As for low-mid merit individuals, they are basically worthless to me. I’d rather not hire at all and do it myself because some people outweigh their contributions through inefficiencies. 

 

With that said, I’m speaking in purely business terms. Just because I wouldn’t hire someone doesn’t mean I believe they are somehow less human and undeserving of a reasonable and SAFE standard of living, the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to be treated fairly, etc.

 

I’ve already publicly said I support* guaranteed basic income for all citizens as a way forward in what is going to be an increasingly automated world. 

 

*though obviously it requires research/modeling and testing before such a system could reasonably be implemented. 

My reasoning for profit sharing being mandatory is also because I believe minimum wage and a guaranteed minimum income cannot, and do not work. Companies will just raise prices to offset increasing taxes.

 

But if you take a percentage of the profit margin, there's nothing they can do about it. raising prices will only raise the amount getting paid to the workers automatically. My issue with minimum wage is that this does not happen. Every time it gets raised, companies just raise prices again, further devaluing the currency and keeping the workers where they are.

[matrix07012]

On 9/27/2018 at 3:08 PM, rcmaehl said:

• Workers “who normally aren’t connected to each other suddenly hanging out together”

So you just found a new friend? Fired!

[Okjoek]

F@#$ Amazon. Shopping as little as possible from them.

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

My reasoning for profit sharing being mandatory is also because I believe minimum wage and a guaranteed minimum income cannot, and do not work. Companies will just raise prices to offset increasing taxes.

 

They do raise prices, Australia has a minimum wage (not a garrunteed minimum income) and it does cause the cost of everything in Australia to be higher (the fuck you Australia tax we refer to).  However it scales in part, so the cost of product increases is not more than the take home wage increases.  It's not designed to be like that, it's just the nature of economics.   So in one way it actually works out good and makes out economy stronger.

[Trik'Stari]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They do raise prices, Australia has a minimum wage (not a garrunteed minimum income) and it does cause the cost of everything in Australia to be higher (the fuck you Australia tax we refer to).  However it scales in part, so the cost of product increases is not more than the take home wage increases.  It's not designed to be like that, it's just the nature of economics.   So in one way it actually works out good and makes out economy stronger.

In the end, all I see is unnecessary inflation. All I see is that the top of the pyramid is unwilling to "do it for less", as they would expect the bottom of the pyramid to do.

 

Sooner or later, those at the very top of the economy will have to accept slightly less than they currently have. As much as I am for a free market economy, I am also completely against the abuse of that free market, to the detriment of those at the bottom. How can we ever expect to better ourselves as a species, with such a system?

 

Sooner or later we are going to have to agree that those at the very bottom need not struggle. While we can argue about luxuries, necessities should take priority. People like the CEO of Nestle, who thinks that access to fresh water is not a human right, should be, in a social way, "thrown out on their asses".

 

 

I realize that, to an extent, I sound like an SJW here. This bothers me deeply. However, I would assert that people like the CEO of Nestle, cause clear, demonstrable harm to their fellow man. Such behavior should not be tolerated.

 

If one wanted to gauge how far I extend this attitude, I would include the staff of the New York Times, The Richmond Times Dispatch, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, and Twitter in the same regard.

 

It is long past time that we, as a society, assert a singular set of principles upon ourselves, and be willing to debate those principles in a manner that is civil and respectful, and to reject those who take such debates into the realms of extremity.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

In the end, all I see is unnecessary inflation. All I see is that the top of the pyramid is unwilling to "do it for less", as they would expect the bottom of the pyramid to do.

 

Sooner or later, those at the very top of the economy will have to accept slightly less than they currently have. As much as I am for a free market economy, I am also completely against the abuse of that free market, to the detriment of those at the bottom. How can we ever expect to better ourselves as a species, with such a system?

 

Sooner or later we are going to have to agree that those at the very bottom need not struggle. While we can argue about luxuries, necessities should take priority. People like the CEO of Nestle, who thinks that access to fresh water is not a human right, should be, in a social way, "thrown out on their asses".

 

 

I realize that, to an extent, I sound like an SJW here. This bothers me deeply. However, I would assert that people like the CEO of Nestle, cause clear, demonstrable harm to their fellow man. Such behavior should not be tolerated.

 

If one wanted to gauge how far I extend this attitude, I would include the staff of the New York Times, The Richmond Times Dispatch, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, and Twitter in the same regard.

 

It is long past time that we, as a society, assert a singular set of principles upon ourselves, and be willing to debate those principles in a manner that is civil and respectful, and to reject those who take such debates into the realms of extremity.

I fully agree, everyone is entitled to a decent life.  There are enough resources on this planet for everyone so the only people who deserve to struggle are the ones not will to work their fair share.

 

However I don't think we have had any issues from minimum wages here in Aus,  CEO's still make millions, companies still post billion dollar profits, products aren't as cheap as they are in the US but everyone has a roof, food and minimum 42" tv.    That's a pretty decent starting place for any citizen.