[newacct583]

> What's a few avoidable deaths between friends, after all?

Amazon is about as close to the ideal of an "essential employer" as anyone is, though. They're shipping a huge amount of food and other essentials. Objectively, a package delivered through a managed professional environment is less risky and involves fewer potential transmission events than one purchased at retail.

Online sellers, where they have product to deliver, are the ones we want to prioritize keeping open.

Now... there's lots to complain about with Amazon's response in other ways. It's very reasonable to argue that their workers need more PPE, employer-provided testing and notification, hazard pay, better safety practices, etc...

But if you want to argue that Amazon should shut down... who do you want to be open instead?

[jcims]

I'm glad I waited an extra minute to comment b/c you did all the work. Amazon has allowed me to limit my local travels to two physical environments for essentially the past six weeks. There's a value to that in reducing transmission.

[aaomidi]

By requiring others to do that for you and paying them pennies for what value they're providing.

I'd agree with you if the company decided to not take profit during this time and paid the employees the same amount of value they produce.

[bhupy]

> By requiring others to do that for you and paying them pennies for what value they're providing.

The median wage of an Amazon Warehouse worker is about $60,000 / year, which is above the median wage in the US[1]. The 25th-percentile wage for the same worker is $53,000 — still higher than the median wage, and this is an entry level position that requires no college eduction.

Amazon also provides 401(k) matching for their warehouse workers and provides them the same group health insurance as their software engineers and executives[2][3]. It is quite possibly the most generous set of benefits currently available to an entry-level low-skill worker with no college education.

> I'd agree with you if the company decided to not take profit during this time and paid the employees the same amount of value they produce.

Couple things: 1) I think you're overestimating how much profit Amazon makes on its retail business; the margins are razor thin. 2) profit is just the cost of labor for the managers, I.e. the people that are coordinating the labor and calling the high-level shots. This includes coming up with the policies and systems to ensure the company can continue to operate in the midst of a global pandemic.

Finally, Amazon employed 798,000 people as of 2019, and added 100,000 new jobs in the last month alone, with 50,000 current openings outstanding. A lot of the margin goes into literally providing all of these wages and benefits for nearly 1 million people. This is more than many industrialized nations.

[1] https://www.paysa.com/salaries/amazon--warehouse-worker

[2] https://www.aboutamazon.com/amazon-fulfillment/working-here/...

[3] https://www.glassdoor.com/Benefits/Amazon-US-Benefits-EI_IE6...

[whywhywhynot]

The first number is so laughably far away from reality. Do you have any idea how many hours a week you would have to work to make $60k at $15/hr? Does the average warehouse worker make double the starting rate or work 70 hour weeks?

As someone who works in the industry I do agree however that they do an okay job taking care of their people compared to others. But nobody is going to write an article about how shit it is to work at a warehouse owned by a company no one has ever heard of. Amazon has actually done a lot for people at those places too though, if there is an amazon warehouse nearby starting at $15 an hour nobody is going to come work for you for barely above minimum wage anymore, it has definitely put some out competitive wage pressure.

[strikhedonia_]

The Paysa number is probably correct... For the tiny minority of workers in Amazon Warehouses who are salaried. If we look at actual wages (not just salaried employees) it would be far lower.

Terribly naive to include that point in the argument.

[bhupy]

Do you have access to more reliable numbers?

[kevingadd]

Like I said, they can fix the problem. It sounds like they're trying, but it's not proven that they've gotten all the way. In the past they were clearly inadequate and it's why employees went on strike and publicly protested.

"Essential employees" shouldn't be put at risk just because people need them to ship stuff out. We shouldn't put "essential employees"' immune-compromised relatives at risk either.

[newacct583]

> "Essential employees" shouldn't be put at risk just because people need them to ship stuff out.

But... isn't that what "essential" means? No one claims this is fair. It's not fair that as software developers we get an automatic pass to continue our careers working from home while our bartender friends have to file for unemployment either.

But at the end of the day we need stuff to live. Someone needs to run the power and intenet and water infrastructure. And someone needs to deliver goods to people who need them.

I mean: I agree we need to make this better for those folks. I just don't see how Amazon demanding essential workers come to work is the wrong thing here.