Most people are happy with Amazon and like the service they provide - this kind of thing is a non-story.
I say this as someone who buys directly from suppliers like Dell or Logitech when I think there's a risk to getting repackaged or counterfeit items from Amazon, but the experience is often worse (Dell monitors took 5 weeks to arrive).
I think these articles are a symptom of something else, but I'm not quite sure what it is. It feels like a political or tribal position, anti-large company, or anti-success? - I'm not quite sure, but I think there's an underlying theme that drives these types of articles and it isn't what they're directly about. They're okay with a small under-dog company story, but if you become large and successful then you're automatically written about in the most uncharitable way possible.
Can I assume that out of concern for these workers you also don't buy food, don't fly commercially, you dispose of your own refuse, never use anything made out of wood and never enter a man made structure?
I shop at the local food co-op, and I'm fine with the union leadership for flight attendants and my local waste removal folks. I can't be perfect -- no one can -- but this is a lot better than some others. Of course, this sort of individualistic atomization of "virtue" with almost zero systemic change to address the underlying concerns is ultimately kind of pointless, but I don't see a reason to start encouraging the exploitation of fellow humans any more than I do now.
Your response makes me think you were triggered by my position. What stake do you hold with Amazon? Why are you coming to their defense?
also danger != horrific working environment
My intention is not to push this narrative. All of us compromise every day on our values, and some matter more to us than others. Personally I thought I'd never drive a fossil-fuel-based vehicle but that quickly became impractical as my priorities called me beyond a 10-mile radius around my home.
> trying to hold Amazon to higher standards
Do you think Amazon is held to high standards already? I hold them to mediocre standards because I understand they have to compete on an absolutely massive scale in an industry with razor thin margins. But even so, they're not doing all that well. Amazon's coffers are so full they can't re-invest their capital fast enough. So I don't see how anyone can argue that it's bad for society to treat employees as if they're humans who can catch & spread a virus and/or die.
If Amazon does indeed engage in illegal behavior, then one should be hell bent on calling them out but the whole raging behavior at all times drains the emotional bank and when the actual crimes occur people don't have appetite for it.
And even if amazon is held to a higher standard (which is a big if), considering that they are by quite a margin the biggest player so what they do creates a signal to all other players about what is acceptable. Moreover with their profits they could afford to treat their employees well.
Those others are likely why this article is popping up now. In the past, people who did not like Amazon would simply shop locally. Now these people have to explore online options. Of course, Amazon has the mindshare so people may not think of the alternatives. People who seek alternatives may find it difficult to determine who is reputable and who is not, or simply who has their act in order to handle online orders efficiently, which also works in Amazon's benefit.
Regardless of how you view their desire to shop elsewhere, that desire still exists. The Guardian was simply facilitating the process for people who want alternatives.
91% with a favorable view of Amazon, and that's sourced via a media company:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21144680/verge-tech-survey...
Amazon the 2nd most trusted brand in America:
THIS:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-t... Effective from 1st April 2020 and directly affects Amazon in the UK.
Wasn't it already decimated by the big box retailers and Wal-Mart?
It's important to also recognize how individuals and families have benefited from Amazon during this time, including myself.
Where you inconvenience yourself for some time to line up in a booth to select someone who you more likely just hated less.
Now imagine doing that all day every day, the inconveniences each time might be smaller, but hey, Amazon is always there. The 'voter turnout' is going to drop to 0 real fast.
There's a growing sense that we ("the free world", western countries + usual friends like Japan, Oz, etc) are about to enter a cold war with China, though, following the COVID-19 debacle.[1] The CPC's ultimate responsibility will likely define the magnitude of that (which may range from mild such as tariffs, to hard e.g. Soviet era, passing by sanctions of various degrees, forbidding companies to even trade let alone joint-venture in China, etc).
Independently of diplomacy, the particular conditions of a pandemic seem to call for less dependence on foreign powers, at least on a continental basis (some capacity for autarky on a temporary basis).
Independently of the above, history shows that out of the 16 last times there was a shift in world's first GDP (here US → China), no less than 12 led to war.[2]
Again independently, the general sentiment towards China has deteriorated faster than ever in 2019 (before crisis), due to the White House posture notably (trade tensions, mutual racism/xenophobia).[3][4] This went even lower recently.[5]
A key factor notably, in my opinion, is that anti-China sentiment used to be correlated with age: people over 50 were more likely to have such a view, while younger categories held a more favorable view; but recent events are likely to sway the opinion across the board. Anyone old enough to have a political opinion isn't likely to "forget" COVID-19 or "forgive" wrongdoings in the matter if responsibility is proven in the public eye.
There is little substance to redeem any of these facts, I'm afraid.
____
A personal take on this [Disclaimer: opinion still in flux as information comes in. Strong conviction, but loosely held.]
I don't see how China doesn't lose most of their international credibility in this affair. Once global production and logistics flows are restructured to take China out of the equation (it'll take years, a decade at least I think), it will take an even longer time to come back, if ever (other superpowers, more worthy of trust, may emerge in a generation's time). It will cost the world a lot, may prolong the depression much more than if we looked the other way, but deaths in the 6 figures (possibly an order of magnitude more by then, even two...) is simply unacceptable, reason enough to do it, to isolate them and take the collective hit. We can take it, the combined power of the world minus China is still overwhelmingly capable to drive growth. There are tons of candidates where investment will flock to fund factories, and some of these will come back 'home' for a number of strategic sectors.
I'm afraid China's economic appeal has all but collapsed for this generation (next 10-20 years). I don't think most people realize it yet, but the pile of arguments for a cold war is damning, historically aligned with most precedents, and actually a rare occurrence of too much at once.
(Let us pray there was no malign intent towards the world, for that would likely remove the "cold" adjective above.)
China may just have lost its shot at becoming the world's "leader", and it seems they only have themselves to blame, as their lack of transparency and their negligence for human life are cold hard choices they still keep making, some 30 years after Tiananmen. We hoped China was ready and could change, we thought it would evolve towards a more trustable partner, but instead it maintained its internal dystopia more strongly than ever, and actually engaged actively in trying to change us (remember how, very recently, they were trying to force the NBA and so many corporations to essentially bend to the CPC's propaganda... needless to say, that ship has most likely sailed for good). If we needed a reminder (apparently we did), authoritarianism kills.
So this:
> But good luck with that, since China is a massive trade partner and every country is turning a blind eye to them imprisoning people in concentration camps and harvesting organs. It’s unlikely The States are going to have a change of heart anytime soon.
Seems incredibly anachronic to me. It was true in 2019, but that world is now over, for good.
I agree with everything else you said.
____
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3081601/co...
[2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/
[3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-c...
[4]: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/attitudes-towa...
[5]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-public-opinion-toward-c...
As a European, I wholeheartedly agree.
It's not a new sentiment either. The US has grown increasingly hostile towards the world since the turn of the century, Bush Jr.
Needless to say, 45 made things way, way worse, but the US made that choice and is poised to double down come November, despite the criticality of current events. The why and how does not matter to the outside. Dems/GOP blablabla, corruption blablabla, Biden blablabla, Hillary blablabla... who cares? Get your shit together!
It's worrying (at an all-time high as we speak) for foreign states and companies. For many around the world, being too tied to the US has become a liability indeed, adding too much uncertainty (risk) to their bottom line or stability. This is no more acceptable than China's lies and deceit. Humbling reminder that hostility is not without consequence, and pretty much always results in lose-lose outcomes.
Losing the US as a dependable, reliable world leader has been the most tragic loss of this century, in my opinion.
But you ask "why should they care?"
Well, I profoundly believe (stressing: belief, no crystal ball here) that no, they won't be able to just shrug it off, they stand to lose a pretty f-ing lot, and it has begun.
Ultimately damaging, delaying or even killing the "Belt and Road" project. That's Xi Jinping's #1 thing, by far the biggest international move they were actively executing, and it will certainly hurt if they lose it (I think the correct phrasing is "now that they've lost it", but let's be conservative here, time will tell).
I think the massive drop in foreign investment, combined with sanctions (or worse) may be huge enough to send them into a depth of economic crisis they hadn't experienced in decades (if only because it takes time to re-profile an economy this vast. A decade or more. They've quite possibly 'doomed' the growth of an entire generation).
We could right now be witnessing China's failure to actually reach #1 GDP (at all, or sustainably beyond momentum). This could be the turning point that cements the USA as #1 for another 1-2 decades.[1]
Considering a big part of Chinese population support for the CPC's is based on the premise of economic growth and ever-higher living standards (that's why they shut up and don't ask for more freedoms or political rights, afaik, because they are content to just see their income rising crazy fast), I don't know what this means for the stability of the CPC there (but surely, 10-20 years of recession is a major, fundamental risk to the very existence of, or compliance to, such an oligarchic model).
But yeah, you may be right. We'll just have to agree to disagree on forecasts for now, which should be easy since none of us predicts the future. And my convictions are, again, strong, but loosely held. We need more data (notably, origin of the virus, cause of the spread, etc).
____
[1]: Assuming the USA doesn't worsen their situation too, which seems, ahem... increasingly less likely as we speak, given the abysmal leadership (I don't know how many deaths from COVID it takes to put this country to its knees, but it sure looks like it's trying hard to get there... so weird).
Not to mention the growing hostility towards all foreign powers almost irregardless of their 'allied' status (as if decades of shared history and partnership suddenly meant nothing anymore...)
This to mean rules apply to all, not just China, and everybody might do well to humbly heed that memo. Including national governments in their handling of the situation.
I see the last leg into europe cut off maybe, but not the rest of the countries along the way which happen to have large populations. And don't seem to care much.
Also Africa.
Furthermore...what should Europe, or any european country do? They voluntarily outsourced much of their production capacity into China. This is going on since decades. I've personally seen/experienced it. Do you think they are capable of resourcing it back in an instant? Could they, with all the environmental standards which are there now?
We live in interesting times!
I mean, the West + JP + Oz + etc. is so much bigger than China alone, and the deceitful / lying / financially predatory nature of that country alone is a big deterrent... Not that Europe was better a century ago, or the US as we speak, but...
That's my big fear, tbh. Blocks. Major blocks. If there is too much symmetry in power, it could have dire consequences.
Edit: not "an instant", I said 10 years at least (that's how long it takes to setup a whole new major factory + logistics flow afaik).
Indeed, interesting times. I never thought it'd go this fast this soon tbh. COVID-19 really is provoking a major shift, I think, resurfacing much deeper tensions, much wider than a 'mere' pandemic.
I might have put Bolsonaro's Brazil in there, along with a strong authoritarian turn (but the lure of wealth is a strong populist stance, especially if you can deliver soon(tm), and China would have huge freed capacity to intake massive partners (factories etc) once the West is gone).
It's striking to me that many could choose China not for China but rather against the US. They say "the devil you know..." but I wonder, if said devil scares the hell out of you, you might just try your luck with another one. (case for Africa notably)
See why I fear blocks... Could devolve into a cold-WWI way too soon way too fast. And from there... ah, better not think ahead too soon.
'1st world problems', so to speak.
I tend to spend more time than usual thinking about current events, obviously, but mostly to anticipate, prepare myself, navigate the chaos (should I say 'thrive' even? Yes, I should, and I do).
But indeed, with a cold stare.
Plans are useless, but planning...
Your phrasing suggests so.
If anything, thanks to them being a go-to platform, they’ve single handedly allowed a lot of third party shops to sell their inventory, and have come out net positive as a result. I don’t mean to sound as an apologist saying this - just stating the bloody obvious.
The “vote with your wallet” rhetoric doesn’t work. It’s half past feel good bullshit. If you want these companies to change it must be codified into the law and backed up by hard time.
But good luck with that, since China is a massive trade partner and every country is turning a blind eye to them imprisoning people in concentration camps and harvesting organs. It’s unlikely The States are going to have a change of heart anytime soon.