[nawgszy]

>at market

Ah yes, the calling card of people that think systematic exploitation of workers in a global economy where only the top few are gaining wealth is fine because "free market rules" matter in a world full of regulatory capture and industries with too high of a barrier to entry to foster true competition.

[Godel_unicode]

> high of a barrier to entry to foster true competition.

The article is literally about true competition being attempted in a high-moat business.

[addicted]

This isn't true competition. This is vertical integration.

Amazon isn't offering to deliver Walmart packages for a price.

[tcoff91]

Actually that's exactly what the article is about. Amazon has already had their own delivery drivers for a long time, they are now directly competing with UPS and FedEx by shipping packages for businesses that don't operate on Amazon's eCommerce platform.

[toomuchtodo]

If Amazon loses money on each delivery to stoke its market share, Walmart should use it as its delivery service until Amazon has exhausted its foray into last mile logistics.

[Godel_unicode]

That's literally exactly what they're offering. This is directly competing with FedEx/UPS.

"...the new service will entail the online retail giant picking up packages from businesses and shipping them to consumers."""

[Fins]

Because paying for things more than they are worth makes all the sense. Soviet experiment worked out really well!

Of course what Amazon will pay their delivery personnel will match the quality of Amazon service, such as it is, anyway.

[bigmanwalter]

I am happy to tip my waiters well. Works out great for me!

[Fins]

Note -- you said tip. And I imagine you tip if you got at least acceptable service (something that looking at comments here doesn't happen too often with AMZL).