[untog]

> Homelessness is not Amazon's problem.

Not directly, no. But Amazon is based in a city that has a large homeless population. It is in the interest of their employees to see that population fall, therefore it also ought to be in Amazon's interest.

> Automation is good. Do you want us to ride horses to work?

Of course it is. But I see this reaction a lot - that anyone asking questions about our automated future is some sort of regressive idiot who hates technology. Far from it. You can see and be in favour of the obvious benefits automation brings, while also questioning what society looks like when a lot of the jobs people currently have don't exist. That doesn't mean "stop automation", it just means "think about the effects of it while we do it, ideally before".

[DSingularity]

If they refuse to answer the points we are raising by attacking us trying represent us as regressive idiots then attack them back. Make them feel like greedy pigs willing to let the world starve to make more money.

Is there any doubt that if Amazon or any corporation would not hesitate to eliminate 90% of the jobs in this world if they had the means to do it cheaper with robotics/ai/cloud tech? They couldn't care less if it meant plunging half the population of this planet into crippling poverty.

Its beyond frustrating the amount of attacks you face for inquiring about the livelihoods and future of people whose jobs are replaced by AWS processes.

You want to automate the world? Great. Ease it in over 2 generations and only when humanity overcomes the greediness that allows us to accept wealth inequality and more money than we can ever dream of spending despite half the world living in poverty.

[BookmarkSaver]

>Its beyond frustrating the amount of attacks you face for inquiring about the livelihoods and future of people whose jobs are replaced by AWS processes.

That is because jobs aren't a hand-out. Somehow, we still have basically full employment 200 years after society started automating away jobs. You face ridicule for bitching about jobs lost to AWS for the same reason people now ridicule Luddites from 150 years ago.

[untog]

Those same 200 years have seen an incredible concentration of wealth towards the richest in society at the detriment of the poorest - and it still continues today. It is not unreasonable to ask if there is a better way to accommodate change.

I'm reminded of the quote by Ronald Wright that is perhaps better suited to today's discussion about Switzerland vs the US, but still feels relevant (and, as an immigrant to the US, very true):

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

[spenczar5]

I dunno, wealth was pretty darn concentrated in 1800 too. Is it really more concentrated now than in the high medieval period? Wealth concentration might have deeper causes than automation.

[DSingularity]

Come on man. I’m not bitching about jobs lost. I’m bitching that as a society we are still petty. We cannot even rally to commit to support ideas like free education or healthcare or even maternal leave. And it’s people like you who choose to completely ignore the obvious point I’m trying to draw attention to — dominant attitude of profits over people — in order to misrepresent me as someone who is bitching over jobs lost to progress. I hope we lose all those jobs. The day we no longer have to have people flip burgers or bag groceries will be a great day. But if those businesses are taking in more wealth now, why not spread it around? Better schools and healthcare. Better opportunity. Why not?

[adamsea]

> That is because jobs aren't a hand-out.

There is a vast difference between government policy intended to help its citizens (and thus, the nation as a whole) prosper and grow and adapt as the economy changes, and "hand-outs."

[icebraining]

when humanity overcomes the greediness that allows us to accept wealth inequality

So, never.

[NegativeLatency]

Sharpen up your pitchforks.

[krapp]

>It is in the interest of their employees to see that population fall, therefore it also ought to be in Amazon's interest.

Amazon is not a humanitarian organization. They are only concerned about the interests of their employees to the degree that the law requires, and their only interest, otherwise is in increasing shareholder value. Amazon doesn't care about the homeless... except maybe as a potential source of cheap labor.

[lovich]

Not caring about the environment you operate in, whether its so much pollution that your rivers light on fire or the human element that might make your workers depressed, just because it doesn't show up on a spreadsheet is an incredibly short sighted move that can and will reduce profits in the long term.

And if a company was willing to fuck over everything as long as it increases shareholder value then it should be regulated. You already implicitly agree with that viewpoint unless you believe that Amazon should be allowed to murder or enslave people as long as it increases shareholder value

[krapp]

I do agree with it, but... Amazon is regulated. They're already not allowed to murder or enslave people - and they still come as close to wage slavery as they legally can in their warehouses. The law doesn't require them to care about the homeless, and the market doesn't seem to care about them caring about the homeless, so Amazon doesn't care about the homeless.

Their culture is legendary for its relentless focus on cutting costs and driving employees hard for the sake of the bottom line, at all levels. I cannot see them spending a dime on fighting homelessness, even as a PR move, unless they expected to make a dollar back, that's just the way they operate.

[lovich]

Ah, I see. Yes, I don't imagine that Amazon would do anything unless they saw a return on investment either. I do think that situations like that do affect their bottom line though, at least in terms of employee morale when it happens in their neighborhoods. I have heard that Amazon tends to churn through their employees, but they are getting big enough where I don't know if they can keep doing that and keep the quality they want

[com2kid]

This state had repeatedly failed to fund and support homelessness and low income housing programs. Apparently the state budget for the year "accidentally" doesn't include promised funding for homelessness programs, and just a few days ago a other program to help with low income housing was tossed to the wind.

Combine that with the NIMBYs refusing rezoning, and you get the current housing mess.