From a shareholder standpoint, it's an incredible business.

From a sustainability, humanity or... really any standpoint that isn't "how much money can I make off of trading this stock/receiving dividends", it's disturbing.

We can all agree that slavery was a profitable business as well - for those who profited from it. Nowadays we look at it with different eyes though, so why shouldn't we look with those same eyes at Amazon (et al) practices as well? Only because they are contemporary? Of course I'm not saying that Amazon does slavery, my point is that if we can apply ethics talking about old practices, we should do the same with current practices.

> We can all agree that slavery was a profitable business as well - for those who profited from it.

It actually wasn't the most profitable business because slaves are both unproductive and not capable of being your customers. Economics being called "the dismal science" was started by a slaveowner who was mad that economists were opposed to slavery.

Of course, to this day middle managers do a lot of things that aren't economically rational because it makes them feel more powerful.

Slavery was profitable. Many mansions in England attest to this. It just wasn't optimal.

Serfdom is not exactly the same as slavery though. It has enough differences to make them incomparable from an economic point of view.

The mansions from feudal times are mostly gone. Many enormous mansions built with the profits of slavery in the West Indies still exist.

> From a shareholder standpoint, it's an incredible business.

If you're trading the stock, sure. But if it's unsustainable it's not a buy and hold stock to fund your retirement

> From a sustainability, humanity or... really any standpoint that isn't "how much money can I make off of trading this stock/receiving dividends", it's disturbing.

It should be disturbing for shareholders (not "sharetraders") too. "Sustainability" is often thought (in America at least) as an externality (e.g. environmentalism).

But they are strip mining their workforce: when turnover happens in weeks or even days they run the risk of running out of hourly workers -- something it's been reported they worry about (though don't seem to be able to do anything about).

They are also exploiting their own customer base (by trying to permit just enough cheapo and crap/counterfeit products to get their margins up without pissing off the punters).

And while social diversity is also considered by many Americans to be an externality, the reality is that an increasing number of people are graduating who did not grow up with a "just put up with that crap" mentality, which restricts the pool of qualified people available to Amazon for the equally crucial non-hourly roles. If you're a black woman with a CS degree from a good school why would you even interview there?

The perspective of customers is also positive.

Is Amazon actually paying dividends though?

Amazon's product is so good that its shareholders don't actually want it to make money as long as they get free one-day shipping, which is why they don't ask for dividends.

This is supposedly "investing for future growth", but it's not that believable since US shareholders rarely wait that long and wouldn't let anyone but Bezos try it.

> US shareholders rarely wait that long and wouldn't let anyone but Bezos try it.

Do index funds, pension funds, 401ks, etc count as US shareholders?

https://www.marottaonmoney.com/what-is-the-average-holding-p...

You've put several unrelated things in that list so I can't answer. Trading shares isn't the only way to express your opinion though, it depends if you have voting shares and how you use them.

You don't actually want them to start giving out a dividend, capital gains have a favourable taxation compared to dividends so as long as their profits can be reinvested and turned into growth investors will prefer that.

Qualified dividends* are taxed the same as realized long-term capital gains in the US.

* - which are most dividends paid by US entities that are not REITs or MLPs and paid to holders who care to optimize their taxes.

That should not matter at all to a shareholder.

I strongly disagree with this statement.

Stock pump is great when you plan to sell later, realize dizzying share price gains, enjoy stock splits, and take loans against your portfolio; that's how it works now and I get it.

But something glaring about this situation makes me feel rather uneasy. Since the market has transitioned from dividends to price hikes, the price performance is fully baked into the economic equations that investors count on for profits.

I can't help but feel something is untoward about the ponzi-esque mechanics and tax sheltering implications of buy-hold-sell-buy the dip-hold. Regular (not rich) people are much less insulated to market downturns and the big players as well as corporate officers are bound to value short term performance, stock buybacks in lieu of dividends, pr-driven policies, and doesn't this even further incentivize insider trading activities and concealment of environmental issues, HR abuses, and other externalities?

What is the real point of the stock now? It is so much farther divorced from the fundamentals of a business and tilted towards this emotional stock market yearly performance corporate raider stuff. Doesn't the stock market have to keep recording historic record highs, or else this all comes crashing down? Does it really matter at all what a company is doing so long as the share price climbs at a rate above inflation? Shouldn't the smartest move now be to buy mass market ad campaigns for "Buy AMZN!"? I mean, if you squint at it just right it looks like if that works, corporations would be obligated to do just that.

If its all truly this fake (so to speak) and its gonna be fine, aren't I an enormous idiot for not quitting my job, liquidating everything, and just buying and selling shares all day long? (I suspect the answer is yes.)

No, if a biz can’t profitably reinvest excess cash, it should get returned to investors as buybacks or dividends. No investment opportunity can take unlimited capital input

Note that Amazon.com has not proven it can profitably reinvest - just that it can reinvest and keep growing revenue. The question is why so many people believe Bezos when he said there was a plan to eventually become profitable.

(AWS is quite profitable, but retail isn't, and it doesn't have a moat.)

No, you are wrong about this. Or several years out of date at least. The idea that Amazon isn't profitable save for AWS is almost a meme for some reason in parts of the tech community, but it isn't true and never really has been when you account for re-investment.

Retail on its own has been profitable for several years now, and its margins are improving. Some of those numbers are public and some are not, but even with just the public numbers it is easy enough to infer the above. What's more, Amazon retail would be pretty wildly profitable, relative to the typical margins of retail, if Amazon stopped dumping billions of dollars every quarter into continuous expansion of its logistics capabilities. They're able to dump those billions while still pulling a slight profit. In general though, they optimize for free cash flow, not profit.

Source: worked there until recently

This was more about when Amazon was starting up (eg before Prime or slightly after it) than the last few years. Nobody expects it to die at this point. Also I said "quite profitable" not "profitable" ;)

> What's more, Amazon retail would be pretty wildly profitable, relative to the typical margins of retail, if Amazon stopped dumping billions of dollars every quarter into continuous expansion of its logistics capabilities.

Well, this is falsifiable, but it hasn't been tested, so I dunno.

As a sibling comment posted, if no one cares about dividends there’s no endgame with owning a stock making it effectively a “always a greater fool” con.

> supports the notion it’s had remarkable HR success by hiring the right people

Amazon is well known for having a reasonably high hiring bar but also a strikingly high turnover.

I would not call it an "HR success" if people join the company mostly only for the FAANG name and the money and then leave.

If it achieves their goals, then it is a success.