After Amazon Increases Worker Wages, Whole Foods Responds By Cutting Worker Hours (theguardian.com) 435
schwit1 shared this article from the Guardian:
In response to public pressure and increasing scrutiny over the pay of its warehouse workers, Amazon enacted a $15 minimum wage for all its employees on 1 November, including workers at grocery chain Whole Foods, which it purchased in 2017... But since the wage increase, Whole Food employees have told the Guardian that they have experienced widespread cuts that have reduced schedule shifts across many stores, often negating wage gains for employees.
"My hours went from 30 to 20 a week," said one Whole Foods employee in Illinois... "We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time," the worker said. An internal email shared by the employee from their department manager cited the across-the-board shift cuts as "the direct result of guidance from our regional team". In Maryland, another Whole Foods worker said their regional management is forcing stores to cut full-time employee schedules by four hours, to 36 hours a week. "This hours cut makes that raise pointless as people are losing more than they gained and we rely on working full shifts," the worker said...
In September 2018, several Whole Foods workers organized the group Whole Worker, with the goals of forming a union and providing workers a resource to organize since Amazon took over... "There are many team members working at Whole Foods today whose total compensation is actually less than what it was before the wage increase due to these labor reductions," said a Whole Worker spokesperson in an email to the Guardian.
Neither Amazon nor Whole Foods responded to requests fo a comment, the Guardian reports -- while the workers that they interviewed "were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation."
"My hours went from 30 to 20 a week," said one Whole Foods employee in Illinois... "We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time," the worker said. An internal email shared by the employee from their department manager cited the across-the-board shift cuts as "the direct result of guidance from our regional team". In Maryland, another Whole Foods worker said their regional management is forcing stores to cut full-time employee schedules by four hours, to 36 hours a week. "This hours cut makes that raise pointless as people are losing more than they gained and we rely on working full shifts," the worker said...
In September 2018, several Whole Foods workers organized the group Whole Worker, with the goals of forming a union and providing workers a resource to organize since Amazon took over... "There are many team members working at Whole Foods today whose total compensation is actually less than what it was before the wage increase due to these labor reductions," said a Whole Worker spokesperson in an email to the Guardian.
Neither Amazon nor Whole Foods responded to requests fo a comment, the Guardian reports -- while the workers that they interviewed "were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of retaliation."
Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You say this like most people understand basic economics. They don't.
Re:Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
What did people think would happen?
People are generally long on good intentions, and short on consequences and repercussions.
The sweet blue-haired lady who feeds the stray feral cats until their population growth outstrips her ability to dump out enough friskies.
The folks who thought Amazon was a goin' to take the wage increase out of their piggy bank, and bear the burden of it heroically.
Which is why the gov't and larger orgs step in (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH if you just leave it up to random chance or an imaginary free market you get bad outcomes. As always ask yourself this: When, in your lifetime, has the best answer to a complex problem been "leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out"?
TL;DR: raise federal minimum wage and the workers can quit and go elsewhere when a manager pulls this crap.
Re:Which is why the gov't and larger orgs step in (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside to this subject, if you look at the 'for-profit' prison system, and how certain demographics of our citizens are treated by law enforcement and the criminal legal system, it comes close to slavery. But that really is a different subject.
Re:Which is why the gov't and larger orgs step in (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, pretty much always. The answer to complex problems is "to leave it alone and hope it sorts itself out."
Well I just used your phrasing here, but let me walk you through it.
How do you know which of the million proposed solutions to any complex problem will work? You don't. That's why it's a complex problem. You probably risk making things worse by thinking you can make a solution.
So, your best bet is to actually leave it alone and know that many people will get off their butts and try and do something about it. Generally speaking, when that happens, good solutions emerge.
For example, when the colonial British had to deal with the Native Indians, they saw a problem. How do you integrate this vastly different culture and people with the more modern British one? They could have just left it as is and let culture and society progress as it may. Instead they decided, let's solve this problem by making Native children into British people. Let's remove them from their parents and educate them in residential schools and that will solve the problem. The result was worse than if they had just left them alone.
That's an example of screwing it up.
Here's a successful example.
Drug prices are a thing.
Certain generic drugs were not readily available or priced reasonably. This is as true in Canada as in the US. I'm in Canada, and it is still a problem here. Here's what some US hospitals did:
https://civicarx.org/about/ [civicarx.org]
They created a non-profit generic drug manufacturer so they could solve that problem. They got off their butts and solved the problem. Best of all their way of solving the problem doesn't prevent or short change anyone else from trying to solve it either.
That's actually what people do. No one likes to sit around doing nothing. People solve problems. For the person who opens a pizza store to the guys who founded Google who saw the a chance at the Internet when Microsoft was slacking, to the guy who decided to try and clean up the ocean with that ocean cleaning floating device.
As it is with the minimum wage. You have no idea what to do with the minimum wage. How does that affect local wages? How about your ability to compete with India/China/Mexico. How does that all play out? I don't know and no one really knows either.
So best to let them play it out. If you really believe in good wages, please get off your butt and start a company and try it out. Just a pizza store, nothing complex.
Even your cat example. I don't know the exact organization you speak of, but no doubt it was a grass roots effort by some people who got off their butts and did something. Not just complain to the government to solve the problem. They might be getting some government aid now or cooperation with the government, but chances are they started out just trying to solve a problem and doing it.
You do studies (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a fantastic example of what happens when you leave shit up to chance take the entire first half of the 19ths century. The Great Depression and both World Wars were basically people letting stuff happen.
Post Great Depression, for example, we heavily regulated banks and had no major crashes for decades. Then we started deregulating things and blamo, Savings and Loan scandals. Same thing happened with the 2008 crash where we let Main Street and Wall Street banks interact (we didn't used to). And then there's stock buy backs. They are absolutely wrecking our economy as businesses pour capital into them instead of investments. Pre-Reagan they were illegal market manipulation, now they're standard practice.
Yes, Human beings can solve our problems. If we couldn't we'd still be at the mercy of the elements. But the thing is, we have to try. And we can't just throw up our hands and say "Welp, that didn't work, I guess we'll never solve that". That kind of defeatism is what gets us the Dark Ages all over again. Thousands of years with no progress.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, think of all the song birds that won't be killed by cats. Quickly looking, it seems to be between 1.4 and 3.7 billion killed by cats a year in America.
No longer have a cat, started to get rats around the bird feeder, now have a regular mink and owl and no rats.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Of course they did (Score:5, Insightful)
That actually may not be true, when looking at the complete picture.
Higher wages for fewer hours are better, given all other factors remain the same. In my state, and in other states, there are laws requiring benefits to be paid when a certain number of hours per week are worked. In those situations, it's better to work the required number of hours at a lower wage, and receive the additional benefits, than it would be to work fewer hours at a higher wage, without the benefits.
This isn't rocket science. Anyone that has paid payroll to employees knows this stuff.
Unfortunately, most people haven't paid payroll to comply with multiple different state's laws, and Federal laws, and don't understand basic economics.
Re: Of course they did (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, in this case the hours worked are not enough that the employees qualify for most benefits, so this argument falls apart.
Re: Of course they did (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies that were going to slash hours to avoid paying benefits would have already done so years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Fix the systemic problems (Score:5, Interesting)
I've pointed this out elsewhere on the thread, but either Amazon didn't increase payrolls and set their store managers up to fail or they did and the store manager is taking advantage of the situation to lower his wage costs in the hopes of netting a nice fat bonus.
In either case the solution is to fix the systemic problems at the top. To wit:
1. Raise Federal minimum wage so the employees can go find other work at the same pay.
2. Implement Medicare for All so employers no longer fear paying benefits just because they gave somebody 30hr/week.
As an added bonus you'll get a stronger economy from increased spending by low wage earners (who tend to spend 100% of their income), studies show you won't see inflation [seattletimes.com] and you'll save $5 trillion every 10 years [justcareusa.org] on healthcare while giving everyone access.
There is literally no reason not to do this except "I feel like I earn less when somebody earns more".
True story, a bud worked for a shitty call center that cut everybody's pay. This caused a ton of backlash so they company said that, as a reward for their years of good service, they would be starting new employees at $2/hr less than the existing employees.
Re: (Score:3)
That was already proved bullshit (Score:3)
The study was intentionally misread to make the minimum wage increase look bad. What actually happened is a small number of newer workers were forced to get jobs outside Seattle in the suburbs and periphery where the wage increase didn't take place. Making the $15/minimum national would solve that, which is exactly why we have a national minimum wage.
Check the links (Score:3)
Also, we're at under 5% unemployment, which economists call "full employment". Now, I know damn well that number is bullshit because it includes a ton of 'gig' economy workers getting taken advantage of. But minimum wage increases help there too. The trouble we have is we've pushed too much money to the top. Not enough dollars are circulating in the economy. It's exactly what happe
Re:That was already proved bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you propose to do that when you work full time but earn $20 a week? Or two full time jobs - for a whole $80! Or less! Since there's no minimum wage!
The minimum wage exists as a floor. If your business doesn't pay a living wage, your business doesn't deserve to exist.
Suuuuuure. But I ask again: why don't you Randians put your home economics where your ideology lies? Back in 2001, Nickel and Dimed [wikipedia.org] was written by Barbara Ehrenreich, on what a rotten existence it is to try and get by on the minimum wage. Which hasn't been increased since Bush was president.
So why don't any of you show us all how it's done. Show us how awesome it is to live under a bridge and eat potatoes because that's all you can afford. You Randians are real big on advocating starvation-level wages for other people, but never try doing it yourselves.
Actually it does (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason why trickle _down_ doesn't work is that no matter how greedy you are there's only so many hours in the day to spend money, and only so many yachts to buy.
Give a rich man money and he sits on it to use it as a power broker tool to get what he wants. Give a poor man money and he spends it. Multiple studies have shown that demand side economics works. That a dollar given to a poor person circulates far, far more than even two given to a rich man.
The other way minimum wage "trickles up" is that it sets a floor nobody can fall below, reducing desperation. Desperate people will struggle. Most will collapse under the weight of those struggles, but a few will make it. Those few will compete with you for your jobs, putting pressure on your wages. The guy what would have been happy in life at $20/hr in a factory is now gunning for your $90k/yr job because that's what it takes to get by. Sure, he'll fail, but there's a million guys behind him. If even 1% make it into your industry you wages will go down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Of course they did (Score:2, Informative)
My wife took a part time job at Whole Foods last year so we could pay some debt off early. Most of the employees were lazy sacks of crap who barely did anything other than smoke pot on their breaks and show up late for work. You could easily cut the staff by 60% and double the wages of the rest at most stores, make them all full time and cover their health 100%, and still end up paying less per worker in payroll costs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Idiot.
Re: Of course they did (Score:3)
Is Amazon managed well? (Score:2)
The complete picture: It seems to me that there are many areas in which Amazon is badly managed.
I've seen many misleading items on Amazon. For example, this King Size 100% Cotton Sheet Set [amazon.com] was advertised as costing $7.45. On Amazon it says "+ $11.55 shipping". The true cost with shipping is $19.
The top reviews say that the sheets are NOT cotton.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a raise. You don't need more free time to overcome the effects of inflation--you need an actual increase in the number of monetary units.
By keeping gross wages static, Amazon is allowing inflation to give their workers a pay cut. Every year, they can purchase less and less in goods for that money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Of course they did (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not true at Whole Foods, they give benefits to part time employees as well. Glad I could educate you.
Are benefits dispered flat or tiered? (Score:2)
Re: Are benefits dispered flat or tiered? (Score:2)
Amazon didn't when they raised the wages.
Why quit and go somewhere else when the company that owns your company is under pressure to raise your standard of living, and operate a subsidary at a potentially anti-competitive loss for your benefit?
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
So we have the following:
* Raising wages is only beneficial if the hours, etc., remain the same.
* Cutting hours can be beneficial if there new hours are predictable enough for a second job, and as long as the second job results in better pay and career advancement.
* Raising wages at a brick and mortar subsidiary which cannot afford the raises on its own may have no effect or ev
Re: (Score:2)
Gaining enough time to get a second job is irrelevant because that time wasn't available before the wage increase anyway.
Up to the point that the increased workload becomes an excessive burden, fewer hours but getting the same total pay is usually very beneficial; leisure time is scarce and valuable.
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
Reducing the hours worked negates the pay increase. Without the other negatives that is a net zero, a wash, a non-thing.
It is such because reducing hours does not necessarily free up those hours for leisure activities or a second job. 10 hours cut across a work week can be managed in such a way that it provides mere tens of minutes of extra value to the employee. One such way is to exten
Re: (Score:2)
It is relevant in that the objective is a net improvement.
Why do you believe that? Amazon's objective is to silence criticism that its employees are underpaid.
Employees want $15 per hour? Okay fine, here's $15 per hour - now you need to earn the higher wage.
Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
This simply illustrates the obvious reason why minimum wage is not a good form of welfare. Universal basic income combats the same problem (workers without the economic value being able to earn a living wage) but without fighting against the supply/demand curve. It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces. Just let wages fall where they may and provide for general welfare in another way.
The economic value of any individual is exactly what they would be paid without any minimum wage. That is fine. Just make sure society is providing basic means for all citizens without relying on wages. Minimum wage is a very poor way of doing that.
Re:Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:5, Interesting)
Minimum wages are nessesary if you dont have strong unions. In Denmark we dont have a fixed minimumwage. Instead the wages are handled through negotiations between unions, politicians and employers unions. Take a Mcdonaldworker in denmark. The startning wage is just below $20.... and yes we still have plenty of fast food stores. American workers should never have abandoned their untions.
Re:Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:4, Interesting)
I would agree that unions are a better way to provide general welfare than minimum wage laws, but still not as good as methods which do not interfere with market forces. This is of course debatable, but many contend (including me) that unions harm overall competitiveness of a society in an effort to provide general welfare to all citizens. Basic income could do the same, but paid for by progressive taxation instead of reducing the global competitiveness of businesses.
Re:Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:5, Interesting)
I concur. Minimum wages and unionized wages/benefits are really stopgap measures to try to ensure a living wage and appropriate compensation. UBI would negate the need for both, as there wouldn't be a compelling reason for people to accept poverty wages. That would force businesses to be competitive in getting workers to work for them, rather than being able to abuse their labor because there isn't much of an alternate.
I think this would also nudge people into being self-employed and trying to start their own businesses, as the risk in doing so would be markedly reduced. People trying out new businesses can only be a good thing for most communities.
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree that unions are a better way to provide general welfare than minimum wage laws, but still not as good as methods which do not interfere with market forces. This is of course debatable, but many contend (including me) that unions harm overall competitiveness of a society in an effort to provide general welfare to all citizens. Basic income could do the same, but paid for by progressive taxation instead of reducing the global competitiveness of businesses.
What makes you think that unions are something unnatural and harmful to the free market? If you have large corporations with lots of small individual contractors (a,k.a. employees) working for them the negotiating power of the corporation is disproportionately large and they can beat up and abuse each small contractor individually (i.e. your perfect world). It is only natural for the small contractors to band together, become large players and kick back so they cannot be so easily abused. This is market for
Re: Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:2)
Two problems with universal basic income. The money has to come from some where, and the goods have to come from somewhere.
Ubi is economically impossible until we improve and fully automate manufacturing. That will finally lower the cost of manufacturing that Ubi becomes practical. We have 50 years from ,3d printing will take that long for enough market saturation for product manfactuting.
Just look at the automotive industry. Robots are slowly replacing more and more workers. Once we have completely au
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is to bring executive compensation down to merely 500 times minimum wage from the 5-10,000 it currently is.
There are a few grossly overpaid executives, but it's nowhere near as common as some think. You would find a lot more money by limiting entertainers' and professional athletes' compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Minimum Wage is a Poor Form of Welfare (Score:4, Insightful)
Ubi is economically impossible....What is needed is to bring executive compensation down to merely 500 times minimum wage from the 5-10,000 it currently is.
You say it's impossible, but hint at one thing which would help.
What's not talked about much in UBI calculations is the potential economic growth that would happen under it. If everyone suddenly has financial stability, a lot of deferred or luxury purchases are going to occur that currently are not happening. And a lot of parasitic businesses that extract money from the economy will start to dry up.
One of the compounding factors of poverty is that wages are often uncertain. You're making ends meet for a month or two, then you stop getting shifts. During that time you might have made some purchases that are suddenly unaffordable. This is in part why predatory businesses like rent-to-own, pawn shops, and payday loan places set up shop in the poor parts of town. They capitalize on the uncertainty of poverty.
Those businesses right there represent another place where we can squeeze out more money for UBI.
Back to the executive paychecks, the top 1% now have wealth equivalent to the bottom 50%. That represents an economic anchor of epic proportions, as that's money that's not circulating in communities. That's money that's not changing hands daily, subject to sales tax, property tax, and income tax. At best it gets dinged a little with capital gains taxes, but given the tax accountants the 1% can afford, even that is unlikely. We've steadily chipped away at estate taxes too, so even in death this money won't go back into economic circulation.
We literally are not taxing 50% of the money anymore.
And this is all without dismantling some of the military industrial complex, and a military which is larger than the next 6 combined, which includes allies.
We've got enough money for UBI. It just requires a rather significant war on the rich and and the military. Unfortunately, they're much better equipped to fight that battle than the population as a whole.
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is to bring executive compensation down to merely 500 times minimum wage from the 5-10,000 it currently is.
That is almost always the exception, rather than the rule. Half the workforce [sba.gov] is in small businesses, and most of those owners/executives earn less than $100K [fundera.com]. At every small business I started, I was NOT the highest paid person, and I was nowhere near 5X the lowest, let alone 5000.
Don't let the rare exception of a few hundred CEOs at massive multi-nationals (who typically make most of their compensation via stock grants) skew your thinking about what the actual executive typically makes - it's a lot less
Re: (Score:2)
The economic value of any individual is exactly what they would be paid without any minimum wage
There's a major fallacy in your argument. Unless the individual actually does the work that they are paid to do, they have no economic value.
Working for minimum wage is one thing, being paid that wage without doing any work in return is something entirely different.
Well, that's because it's not welfare (Score:5, Interesting)
It also raises _your_ wages, because it increases job mobility on the low end and makes it less likely somebody at the low wage sector is going to start gunning for the next job up the pole, pushing wages down in that sector and causing a cascade effect that eventually hits your end.
An economy without worker protections is always, always a race to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay yourself on the back because you think your helping. In reality you’re just trapping people in poverty or driving them to the type of work that doesn’t operate within the confines of the law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It has been obvious for at least a century that market forces are insufficient to promote the general welfare of all citizens, but the answer is not to combat market forces.
I'm not sure that's at all obvious. Market forces have driven the standard of living in those countries that don't mess with them to the highest the world has ever seen. It's the countries that think they know better and can dictate how the market must work that fail to meet the general welfare of their citizenry. Look at Venezuela where almost 10% of the population has fled the country to avoid starvation. Even the Scandinavian countries that are often praised for their strong social safety nets have some
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with a UBI, but I think if we did that then there would be a very restricted worker supply for jobs that are currently at or below minimum wage. Why would you slave away at a crap job when you have all your basic needs met? This will cause the market to correct itself with much higher wages for everyone, and the corporations don't want that to happen because they like slave labor.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get your argument. You think removing the minimum wage would lower wages enough that supply for those jobs would drop drastically, and then think the wages would rise significantly again without bringing back up the supply? You basically describe why wages would stabilize without acknowledging that they would.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's no reason to expect that the Whole Foods operation should have to pay for the opex of the core business. In fact, Amazon is so big and profitable that the should have been able to pay for that wage increas outb of their profit margin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
Probably anti-competitive and illegal though.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't. Amazon did nothing but lose money the first ten years of its existence. Uber loses billions of dollars every year. You don't have to make a profit when your goal is to drive out the competition, and/or you are floated with venture capital in the process of establishing a presence in the market.
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
But that lends one to wonder, how much of Amazon is "subsidized" by the Open Source community?
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2)
Open Source Socialism works on a pay it forward model (workers below living wage). Capitalism works on a pay it backwards model (costs are accrued and passed along). If one person is paying it forward to a CEO, and another paying it backwards, the benefits of profit are then centralized, no?
A worker working below the cost of living is subsidizing the business, typically in the hopes of getting a return on that investment, for entry level that return is in the form of training an
Re: (Score:3)
What did people think would happen?
When you don't pay people a living wage what do you think will happen? Eventually there will be a good investment to be made in guillotine futures. Jeff Bezos is the richest man on earth, he and his company can afford to pay people a wage his employees can live on. The only reason they don't is greed ... greed and nothing but greed.
Cuts both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
The end result may not actually affect a companies bottom line much but it will mean that those less capable workers are going to find it harder and harder to find jobs as they are squeezed out by automation and higher job expectations. So while raising wages may reduce the number of people in poverty for some it is likely to make things a lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but at the same time, higher wages for workers will mean that they have more money to spend. And that, in turn, means they need more goods and services, which will require more workers.
I'm not sure anyone can forecast the economics of this, but it's more complicated than you make it out to be. So Whole Foods hires less but more competent workers at a higher wage. Those workers now can afford to go out to eat more, buy nicer stuff for their house, and afford a daycare so their partner can f
Re: (Score:2)
No one should be surprised that Amazon is being vindictive.
Re: Of course they did (Score:2)
Amazon is being greedy and foolish, not vindictive.
Amazon can afford pay raises, Whole Foods cannot. This highlights the state of our economy.
Well if you actually read studies (Score:2)
Yes, there are going to be some isolated incidents. That's why you need to have a _Federal_ minimum wage. That way when a bad manager responds by cutting hours and telling everybody to work harder the employees can do this [wtsp.com].
Could be a good thing. (Score:2)
Having a steady job with a good wage, though with slim hours, can be great for students and people who are trying to launch their artistic career or whatever and just need to get the basic bills paid. I'd have loved a 20 hour a week job that paid $15 an hour when I was in college. That's twice minimum wage and part-time jobs just didn't approach that kind of money.
If you've got a side-hustle income that isn't consistent, it can help a lot to have some measure of stability.
Re: (Score:3)
Up the wage (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise the Federal Minimum and it is (Score:3)
I've pointed out elsewhere on the thread that the studies show actual minimum wage increases help workers. That includes that Seattle study that was originally misinterpreted.
Re: (Score:2)
Whole Foods might have better margins since they're a little upscale, but that additional profit tends to attract competition. Unless they're doing something that other companies can't emulate
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically, they only could've afforded a little less than a $1/hr wage increase (that would've put them at the industry average 2.85% profit
When are the behemoths going to learn? (Score:2)
If the common workers have more money to spend, the economy will be better for everybody!
They'll be able (and willing) to spend more money, and will do so where they get a decent price on their stuff.
Don't they make enough profit corporately that the increased wages make little impact on the overall profits, or are they too money-grubbing to really care?
I'm betting on the latter, personally.
Re:When are the behemoths going to learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm betting on the latter, personally.
I'm betting one of the choices you left out: not enough profit [cnbc.com] means the business will close [cnbc.com]
So which is it (Score:2)
If the Job Creators filed to create jobs, isn't it time for a New Deal [justicedemocrats.com]? That's what we did the last time, and it lead to the biggest prosperity humanity has ever seen.
On a side note, if you look into it y
Re: (Score:2)
I'm betting on the latter, personally.
I'm betting one of the choices you left out: not enough profit [cnbc.com] means the business will close [cnbc.com]
Sears went out of business because their customers were the middle class - which is rapidly disappearing in the US. JC Penny is in the same boat. Sears got big because of all those high paying UNION manufacturing jobs during the most economic vibrant and highest taxed time in US history.
And what none of the arm-chair economists here don't know is that housing has become too expensive for many many people. On average, one needs to make $38,000 per year just to have a place to live in most place in the USA - it's over six figures in the SF Bay Area and NYC.
And the arm-chair economists don't know is that those shit jobs don't have healthcare. Nor could the workers afford it from the exchanges - especially if they live in some shit Republican controlled state that didn't expand Medicaid because - Obama!.
Healthcare is now a luxury in the USA - just like some shithole third World country.
It's easy to pontificate about wages when one has a cushy overpaid STEM job that, for now, is in high demand.
I'm solidly middle class and never shopped at Sears because their prices are too high. Much lower cost options around for similar quality products.
Re: (Score:3)
Whole Foods [wikipedia.org] has 91,000 employees. In their last year of independent operation [annualreports.com], they had $15.7 billion in gross sales, $507 million net income (aka profit). That's $827 million before taxes, with $320 million in corporate income taxes, or 38.7%.
If you figure just half those 91,000 employees are wage slaves who
where's the causality? (Score:2)
If management spot a productivity opportunity that reduces net cost to the organisation then they're likely to pursue it whether they've just given the staff a payrise or not.
It's perhaps ironic that there wouldn't be a story had the hours reduction been implemented without pay rising, as that would merely be a business seeking to optimise its operations.
Time to look at other options (Score:2)
Polish up that resume, or improve your driving skills
The situation will cycle through further measures until the company brings in third party consultants to "streamline operations" or cut back on staff (being frank here, mind you) to "improve overall effectiveness" yadda yadda and could deteriorate even further
Welcome your robot co-workers, too.
Best of luck to you people. Maybe take that long-postponed vacation to think things through; pick some place remote that might do wonders for your mental health, if
Margaret Thatcher... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Margaret Thatcher... (Score:4, Insightful)
and by raising prices of course. Workers are thrilled to see that minimum wage go from say $13 to $15/hr, right up until they take home their new paycheck and discover the cost of dinner out just went from $13 to $15. Imagine that. And that's how inflation works. When businesses have to pay more, they just have to pass along the costs. Raising the minimum wage doesn't just magically make money appear in the economy. Well, I suppose it DOES make money appear, but with a corresponding drop in value. So, no net gain. The only way this can possibly put more value in people's paychecks is if businesses volunteer to lower their profit margins (or go bankrupt trying), and no smart business is going to do that. Expecting that to happen is on par with believing in trickle-down-economics. People and groups aren't rich because they're stupid and generous, they're rich because they're smart and shrewd, and you must anticipate consistent behavior from them.
I think we have to assume the people making these changes understand how the process works, and are only doing it to entertain the people that don't understand it and think it'll be helpful to do. Making the voters (the stupid ones anyway) happy for a little while.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism is also fine until you run out of other people's money. The top 1% now have wealth equivalent to the bottom 50%. A retail worker may not be worth $30k/year in a lot of businesses, but they're worth $0/year if their customers don't have any money to spend at that establishment. 1% of the population is never going to be able to prop up the economy by visiting enough retailers to make up for 50% of the population.
Neither unfettered capitalism nor socialism are the correct answer. There's a middle gr
That's now how economies work (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem we have is that the increase is from automation. Meaning that it's machines, and not workers, adding the value right now. This means a worker cannot simply bargain for better pay anymore because the value of their labor isn't raising. It's the opposite. Automation is decreasing the value of labor. So we have more of everything but less to go around. Here's a much more succinct explanation of the phenomenon [youtube.com]
TL;DR;You do not "run out" of money because economies grow. But without public policy to manage where that growth goes you end up with out of control inequality & robber barons. Exactly like we did pre-New Deal. Time for a New New Deal.
Welcome to the free market economy. (Score:2)
...and I'll bet the Whole Foods bosses also give themselves a nice bonus for raising productivity.
Doesn't pass the smell test (Score:2)
Crappy part time job. Anecdotal story(ies?) that claim they got hours cut. "We just have to work faster to meet the same goals in less time". Smells like bullshit to me. Unless they weren't doing shit at 30 hours for one third of the time, then no way can they meet the same goals.
No low wage business keeps (or cuts the hours of) employees they don't need. If some business owner claims that a minimum wage increase caused them to lay off workers they are either lying or really bad at business.
Closing up
Go elsewhere (Score:2)
In this era of very low unemployment, doubtless there are other non-Whole Food options for workers (even unskilled) to move to that aren't quite so shark-like.
I'm gonna call some bullshit here (Score:5, Insightful)
Something doesn't add up here. There's one of two possibilities.
a. Amazon didn't increase labor budgets, in which case raising their employees wages was a cynical PR stunt pulled specifically so they could then point to and say "See, we tried to help, but minimum wage just doesn't work".
b. Amazon _did_ increase labor budgets, in which case these are just asshat managers exploiting the raise to cut hours without taking the blame for it. If you've ever worked a low wage manager job you know your bonuses are tied to costs.
Either way somebody is blowing smoke up our asses.
While I'm on the Subject (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm seeing a lot of left wing sites I used to read seemingly going to the right. Politico was always kind of establishment...ish but lately they're worse than MSNBC. I've even seen Vox get into the act. The only one that hasn't is Motherjones. Maybe Al-Jazeerez and the BBC but they're not left wing so much as balanced.
I'm wondering if they establishment types are getting scared of the progressive left and turning up the dial? Bernie's got a good shot at the presidency if the DNC doesn't cheat again and AOC is basically the face of the Democratic party at this point. Hell, there was a member of the House that called out AIPAC for Pete's sake and when they tried to shut her out the best they could do was pass a milktoast "anti-hate" resolution (for those wondering, the actual left wants the Israeli gov't to stop shitting all over the Palestinians so we can have actual peace while the Establishment among the Dems would like to keep soaking up the gravy train of campaign donations).
Either way as a Democrat it looks like the Establishment types are sweating, and that can't help but be a good thing for all of us.
It's simple economics (Score:2)
If you increase wages then you increase the supply of workers. The last I checked, working 30 hours a week qualifies you for benefits like insurance. So if they just hire more works, then they can work everyone part time with no benefits. This is simple economics. Because of automation, I think everyone is eventually going to be working part time, so I think the long term solution is to decouple health insurance from employment. I personally feel it should be replaced with a single payer system.
Fear of retaliation (Score:2)
So, basically Amazon has terrorized its employees into remaining silent.
And given that this is a very politically-motivated topic, I'm just going to call Jeff Bezos the richest fucking Terrorist on this planet.
Someone bomb that terrorist fuck into oblivion.
You want the pay, you get the respect (Score:2)
Higher pay includes the respect from an increasing presumption of competence.
Amazon just respects you more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think people think higher wages means getting paid more for the same amount of productivity, which would simply translate to higher prices and inflation. What good is your new higher wage if you have to pay more for your food and living expenses more? I don't think higher inflation is what the people who fought for higher minimum wage wanted, was it?
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think "amount of productivity" means?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who fight for raising the minimum wage are consistently ignoring the "what happens then" aspect of their idea.
As you point out, when you up the minimum wage in situations where it actually matters (i.e. when the minimum wage is actually not already exceeded by market forces) you start a cycle of inflation pressure. More dollars are casing the same amount of goods and EVERYBODY pays more for stuff. The problem here is that although the minimum wage workers do see a pay increase dollar wise, they even
No (Score:5, Informative)
This wasn't a minimum wage increase. Amazon increased their wages. If we'd done a federal increase then the workers could leave or go get second jobs and do just fine. If we did Medicare for All they wouldn't have to fear losing health benefits (and the employers wouldn't have to worry about paying for them).
Progressive policy works when it's not being actively sabotaged by bad actors.
makes sense (Score:2)
Extra spare time that they can use honing their C#/Unity skills and doing more research for their investment portfolios!
Re:Unions (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we can also add the countless voices and protestors who demonstrate openly for increased minimum wages at $15/hr. This is a news article that generally only needs a few sources. Notice that Amazon and Whole Foods refused to comment at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we can also add the countless voices and protestors who demonstrate openly for increased minimum wages at $15/hr.
Of course. For many this represents a huge pay increase, though still not a living wage in many markets, but the story is about the implementation of the raise along with, allegedly, fewer hours.
This is a news article that generally only needs a few sources. Notice that Amazon and Whole Foods refused to comment at all?
What, exactly, would that press release be like?
There are some workers, amongst our half a million employees, who have worked fewer hours since the pay raise.
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian article mentions speaking to a single worker in Illinois, one in Oregon, a disgruntled slave wage in Maryland, and another in California... none of who can be independently verified because of fear of repercussion. If you speak to enough hourly employees in any industry, you will find a few disgruntled individuals willing to speak negatively of their chosen employer, especially off the record.
Not to explicitly assume a small sample size, but it's a more interesting narrative if the great evil corporation is putting it to the little man.
So go do that, sample an Amazon facility personally. Stand at the gates of some Amazon slave bunker with a tablet computer and ask the people coming out how well and easily they can live on the wage they are paid and the hours they work, it's not quantum physics. Judging from the tone of your post I know you are expecting to hear many glowing protestations of love for Bezos, Amazon and trickle down economics but knowing what I do about Amazon you'd better get ready to learn a whole lot of new swear words an
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are, a job in an Amazon warehouse is no worse than a similar vocation at Walmart or Dollar General, and orders of magnitude better than workers at Ali Express or Foxconn.
Off the record, for fear of reprisal, we interviewed four or five migrant ditch diggers and farm workers who would love that inside job instead of what they do now. Oh, and they'll do it for $13.50 an hour.