Hmm. There's a lot of material there, some of which I agree with and some of which I question. Let's take on some pieces; addressing everything would be a huge essay and many hours of work.
---
I read the Wired story at your link, and did not find it as terrible as you perceive. The writer says she spent months interviewing Amazon work…
Hmm. There's a lot of material there, some of which I agree with and some of which I question. Let's take on some pieces; addressing everything would be a huge essay and many hours of work.
---
I read the Wired story at your link, and did not find it as terrible as you perceive. The writer says she spent months interviewing Amazon workers (and mentions working for a week at a warehouse, tho perhaps she also worked other times?). From that, she chose a handful of people for the article. Are they representative, or selected for some other reason?
I'm mildly skeptical of the framing "taking advantage of folks who lost everything in the Great Financial Meltdown". The lead couple lost 100% of their investments ($250K and $200K) according to the article. I and my friends all lived through that too, but nobody lost anything close to 100% on invested money. How does that happen, unless one is investing in a very high risk/high gain option? It says that he believed that a $250,000 investment would yield $4000/mo (or $48K/yr, about 20% per year). Sound like a good, safe investment to you? Anyway, it's sad if he was given to think that was guaranteed and safe, and I would be happy to have any fraud investigated in that regard.
So they hit the road, broke. They had trouble finding work, until they encountered Amazon's seasonal work, which sounds like it proved a godsend in terms of better employment than they found elsewhere, although it was hard work with long hours. Some picker jobs involved a lot of walking, but according to the article that is changing as robotics handle more of the long distance stuff. Eventually, Amazon will likely automate more and more of the work, reducing their human labor needs, so that folks like the Stouts will have to do without Amazon seasonal jobs - will that be a boon to them?
Is that really such a horror story? Have you ever worked construction or in a factory? Or is your norm for comparison set by white collar work? It sounds like pretty much all of the jobs I had until I worked my way into computers, and which I'd still have been working had I not. It's unfortunate that they are doing that at a more advanced age, but is that Amazon's fault?
Before you answer, remember that the article involves selectivity. Go to indeed.com and look for what Amazon warehouse workers are paid today, and compare that to the local wages for equivalently skilled workers in those locations. I was seeing wages in the $16-25/hr range around the country (where minimum wage varies from $7.25 to $16ish).
What I'm driving at is: we can select stories of people who have suffered personal losses, and then contrast that with companies which paid above market wages yet it was still not enough. Does that justify singling out the company as a particular evil doer, in the mind of the reader juxtaposing selected people who suffered losses not (fully) their own fault, and a company (not responsible for previous losses) which is not making things right for them by paying them sufficiently above prevailing wages. It sets up the reader to think badly about the company, but I think unfairly so.
Criticizing the entire system of market based labor rates might be more appropriately targeted (tho such criticisms also need to be examined of course).
I am NOT any sort of Amazon apologist, I'm just trying to understand things in context. I tend to resist being stampeded nowadays, after finding that I have been taken in so many times. Most folks (including me) have a tendency to easily believe a good story that fits what they want to believe, without checking. We can partially compensate for that by also checking the stories we most want to believe, which have the appropriate white hats and black hats.
---
> "But I also don't think there should be a max on taxation - the more you make, the more you pay, but your taxes don't go up as much as they did several hundred million or a few billion ago."
I don't know what you mean there. There is no maximum tax - the more income you have, the more you pay; the more retail you by, the more sales tax; the more expensive your real property, the more you pay. In the case of income taxes, you not only pay more total, higher income gets taxed at a higher rate. (I would add some more tiers at the top, but not too extreme). The one exception might be social security taxes. In general, the more you pay in, the more you can take out in benefits later. That at the bottom of the scale get back more than they paid in, those at the top get back less than they paid in (so it does already move wealth downward), but at all levels paying higher SS taxes bring more SS benefits than paying less. But the maximum taxed income for social security is $147K this year - which also limits their benefits. (There are proposals to remove the limit for taxes but revise the formulas so there are no increase benefits associated with the higher taxes).
Is that what you mean by max taxation? Or something else?
------
About the fact that the wealth on average work very hard. I recall Daniel Markovits, who is a critic of the meritocracy and the wealthy, but nevertheless admits that the wealthy on average work longer hours, a reversal of historical trends; he speaks of the disappearance of the leisure class. See Sam Harris podcast 205 for an interesting interview (which is not to say that I endorse everything that either person says), or you can just google is name and find other articles.
CEO's in this study worked an average of 62.5 hours a week (including working on 79% of weekend days, and 70% of weekdays).
When I say "work hard" I don't mean that the high income folks tend to sweat and use their muscles a lot; but many jobs are intellectually and emotionally challenging nevertheless.
And let's be clear - I'm questioning the idea that high income folks in general don't work as hard or as many hours as most others do today - I am NOT asserting that means their pay is always appropriate! I think we need a pay differential to motivate people (rather than everybody getting the same pay regardless of contribution), but currently the curve is way too steep, with way too much reward at the top. Even if higher income people on average work pretty hard, there are limits to how much extra that should earn.
Hmm. There's a lot of material there, some of which I agree with and some of which I question. Let's take on some pieces; addressing everything would be a huge essay and many hours of work.
---
I read the Wired story at your link, and did not find it as terrible as you perceive. The writer says she spent months interviewing Amazon workers (and mentions working for a week at a warehouse, tho perhaps she also worked other times?). From that, she chose a handful of people for the article. Are they representative, or selected for some other reason?
I'm mildly skeptical of the framing "taking advantage of folks who lost everything in the Great Financial Meltdown". The lead couple lost 100% of their investments ($250K and $200K) according to the article. I and my friends all lived through that too, but nobody lost anything close to 100% on invested money. How does that happen, unless one is investing in a very high risk/high gain option? It says that he believed that a $250,000 investment would yield $4000/mo (or $48K/yr, about 20% per year). Sound like a good, safe investment to you? Anyway, it's sad if he was given to think that was guaranteed and safe, and I would be happy to have any fraud investigated in that regard.
So they hit the road, broke. They had trouble finding work, until they encountered Amazon's seasonal work, which sounds like it proved a godsend in terms of better employment than they found elsewhere, although it was hard work with long hours. Some picker jobs involved a lot of walking, but according to the article that is changing as robotics handle more of the long distance stuff. Eventually, Amazon will likely automate more and more of the work, reducing their human labor needs, so that folks like the Stouts will have to do without Amazon seasonal jobs - will that be a boon to them?
Is that really such a horror story? Have you ever worked construction or in a factory? Or is your norm for comparison set by white collar work? It sounds like pretty much all of the jobs I had until I worked my way into computers, and which I'd still have been working had I not. It's unfortunate that they are doing that at a more advanced age, but is that Amazon's fault?
Before you answer, remember that the article involves selectivity. Go to indeed.com and look for what Amazon warehouse workers are paid today, and compare that to the local wages for equivalently skilled workers in those locations. I was seeing wages in the $16-25/hr range around the country (where minimum wage varies from $7.25 to $16ish).
What I'm driving at is: we can select stories of people who have suffered personal losses, and then contrast that with companies which paid above market wages yet it was still not enough. Does that justify singling out the company as a particular evil doer, in the mind of the reader juxtaposing selected people who suffered losses not (fully) their own fault, and a company (not responsible for previous losses) which is not making things right for them by paying them sufficiently above prevailing wages. It sets up the reader to think badly about the company, but I think unfairly so.
Criticizing the entire system of market based labor rates might be more appropriately targeted (tho such criticisms also need to be examined of course).
I am NOT any sort of Amazon apologist, I'm just trying to understand things in context. I tend to resist being stampeded nowadays, after finding that I have been taken in so many times. Most folks (including me) have a tendency to easily believe a good story that fits what they want to believe, without checking. We can partially compensate for that by also checking the stories we most want to believe, which have the appropriate white hats and black hats.
---
> "But I also don't think there should be a max on taxation - the more you make, the more you pay, but your taxes don't go up as much as they did several hundred million or a few billion ago."
I don't know what you mean there. There is no maximum tax - the more income you have, the more you pay; the more retail you by, the more sales tax; the more expensive your real property, the more you pay. In the case of income taxes, you not only pay more total, higher income gets taxed at a higher rate. (I would add some more tiers at the top, but not too extreme). The one exception might be social security taxes. In general, the more you pay in, the more you can take out in benefits later. That at the bottom of the scale get back more than they paid in, those at the top get back less than they paid in (so it does already move wealth downward), but at all levels paying higher SS taxes bring more SS benefits than paying less. But the maximum taxed income for social security is $147K this year - which also limits their benefits. (There are proposals to remove the limit for taxes but revise the formulas so there are no increase benefits associated with the higher taxes).
Is that what you mean by max taxation? Or something else?
------
About the fact that the wealth on average work very hard. I recall Daniel Markovits, who is a critic of the meritocracy and the wealthy, but nevertheless admits that the wealthy on average work longer hours, a reversal of historical trends; he speaks of the disappearance of the leisure class. See Sam Harris podcast 205 for an interesting interview (which is not to say that I endorse everything that either person says), or you can just google is name and find other articles.
CEO's in this study worked an average of 62.5 hours a week (including working on 79% of weekend days, and 70% of weekdays).
https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ceos-manage-time
I've seen other indicators, but these are quick.
When I say "work hard" I don't mean that the high income folks tend to sweat and use their muscles a lot; but many jobs are intellectually and emotionally challenging nevertheless.
And let's be clear - I'm questioning the idea that high income folks in general don't work as hard or as many hours as most others do today - I am NOT asserting that means their pay is always appropriate! I think we need a pay differential to motivate people (rather than everybody getting the same pay regardless of contribution), but currently the curve is way too steep, with way too much reward at the top. Even if higher income people on average work pretty hard, there are limits to how much extra that should earn.