> They're offering them a decent job

Actually Verdi (the union) is also complaining about some of the working conditions as well, which they consider inhumane. It is mainly, but not exclusively about the wages.

> for a decent wage

Amazon is not paying according to the Branchentarifvertrag (industry sector collective agreement) and refuses to even sit down with the union and talk about collective bargaining. They are also actively trying to keep their employees from unionizing. If you consider the current wages "decent" is up to your point of view, but the union and I'd guess most of the affected workers disagree.

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs

This proves nothing, in particular not job satisfaction, and is actually also not how things work in Germany and therefore just wrong. First a union will usually selectively shut down just a few facilities instead of all at once. This is called "Warnstreiks" (warning strikes), and this is what is happening right now. Only later and and only in accordance with German strike/bargaining law - e.g. you have to be unionized and are prohibited to violate the "Friedenspflicht", which regulates when and under what circumstances a unionized strike may happen - it is possible to enter the actual "Streik" where all (unionized) employees stop working. Plus, amazon employees where often not unionized before this started, so it might take some time and convincing for the union to get employees to join before they enter the "Warnstreiks".

> Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs

Well, the "Arbeitsagentur" (job center) can cut either your unemployment pay or later social welfare (Hartz 4) if you refuse to accept the jobs that are offered to you. If you also happen to have a family, and IIRC amazon employs quite a few single mothers for example, then you're "forced" to take the job in a way.

Some people, in particular union folks of course, even accuse amazon of predatory behavior, especially seeking out the weakest members of society for their work force because they are the least likely to fight against inhumane conditions and low wages. I used to think this predatory characterization was sensationalist and unfair, but by now, from what I read about amazon so far in the press and even in their own press statements, I think there might be something to it. But then again, I'm also just one of these Euro-socialists who thinks that everybody should have health insurance and should earn a living wage if working full time. Amazon more or less takes the same stance as you seem to take: They claim that they are just helping the weakest people. Treating your low-paid work force as if they were industrial robots (one of the complaints by workers and the union, and more or less admitted by amazon to happen as a result of their workplace rules and "processes") and keeping them from effectively complaining about it by keeping them from organizing suggests otherwise.

This. I enjoy working here in Germany for this exact reason, unions and workers rights. It feels so damn great to work in a country where I feel that I am being treated fair and where I know that I can count on my colleagues (not just at my work place but my whole sector) to have my back. The fact is that it is not a lack of income that does not allow bigger wages for the workers at Amazon but an abundance of greed. When your union sees that you could be better off without hurting the place you work at it is going to step in. It is also going to step in when any of your basic rights as a worker is are not met (vacation time, compensated overtime, insurance, workplace safety etc.)

So how does that mesh with this ?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/08/us-germany-jobs-id...

The situation here is better than the situation in other places. It is in no way perfect.

Offering underpaying jobs knowing that benefits will be cut to the person if they refuse is a common tactic used to force people in to jobs they wouldn't otherwise take.

Offering people jobs that wouldn't otherwise take seems to me like a very bad business strategy in the long run.

Why?

They're essentially forced to take them, and there's a low threshold for the cheap pay recouping the training cost on how to move things around the warehouse.

High turnover doesn't matter if there's a steady supply of people coerced in to accepting and training takes at most 2 days.

>*They're not. They're offering them a decent job for a decent wage knowing that these people are totally unskilled.

That was neither a decent job, nor a decent wage. It was just a job and a wage they were forced to do in order to feed themselves, and under very bad conditions.

If a "totally unskilled" jobless person comes to me for money, I can offer him the chance dance, call me "master" and crawl at my feet and then give him $10.

Something which he might be forced to accept (hunger trumps pride).

That doesn't make my offer "decent" -- even if nobody else was willing to give him $10 anyway.

It's Wales. They have welfare for the unemployed to "feed themselves".

No, it's Germany -- RTFA.

I agree with you, but the article is about Wales

>Plus, nobody forced them to accept those jobs. And again, what would be the alternative for people with no skills? Unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills etc. No thanks.

So nobody forced them to accept those jobs, yet their only other option is unemployment, no opportunity to learn skills, and other reasons that you yourself find unacceptable?

How would you define "force"? It seems to me that victims of sexual harassment suffer the same choices. I'm assuming you think sexual harassment should be illegal. Is that not "force"?

Libertarians typically neglect the forces imposed by the lower tiers of Maslow's hierarchy (and by those controlling access to whatever is necessary to meet such needs) because once you start paying attention to those forces the claim that free-market capitalism maximizes individual freedom becomes significantly harder to prove.

EDIT: changed "laughable" to "significantly harder to prove" because I'm not in the mood for a fight today.

By that logic, not only Amazon, but everybody who refuses to hire those workers or pay them more than their work is worth is exerting force. It's absurd.

It might be disappointing that the concept of force/consent doesn't simplify the "which system is best" problem, but I don't see how it's absurd.

If a moral dilemma vanishes when you look at it from a different viewpoint, the most likely scenario is that the new viewpoint is obscuring the crux of the problem rather than miraculously simplifying it.

Say my neighbor and I both own small farms:

My neighbor calls up a local employment firm and hires 50 people to harvest his fields with sickles. He pays them minimum wage for this backbreaking work. They go home with blistered hands, crinks in their backs, and barely enough money to afford groceries for the week.

I instead pay another local farmer, one with deeper pockets, to harvest my field with his swanky combine harvester. He sits in his air-conditioned cabin sipping on a bottle of coke, and gets the job done in two days. For his time and machinery, I pay him a few thousand dollars.

How do these two situations compare? My neighbor is arguably "exploiting" workers who are down on their luck. I am paying a single guy with some entrepreneur spirit arguably too much money to get the same job done. On the other hand, I have failed to provide jobs for 50 workers. Had I forsaken mechanization, the increased demand for labor that my farm would have created could have improved the working conditions, or at least pay, for those bottom-tier farm hands. Instead I eliminated those jobs and the money stayed with me and the wealthier farmer.

Is my neighbor abusing the manual laborers? Am I abusing the wealthy combine owning farmer? Am I abusing the manual laborers? Is the wealthy combine owning farmer abusing me? Surely the manual laborers are not abusing the combine owner, but is the combine owner abusing the manual laborers?

Nothing is being obscured here, it is an extraordinary simple situation that actually plays out every day.

Both of your proposals are exploitative and needlessly unjust.

The big problem with the market is that it forces us to choose between the two. It snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by coupling the "workers starve" outcome to the "workers don't have jobs" outcome. There is no fundamental reason why they need to be coupled. Just because only 80% of people have to work to meet demand doesn't mean the other 20% deserve to starve.

Many systems are possible in which marginal incentives are maintained (the farmer and tractor driver get significantly more money than the out-of-work laborers) but the laborers don't go hungry. I search for my favorite solution among these (I'm a big fan of basic income / negative income tax).

As you note, we are automating away more and more of our economy every day. If we keep our current course, such automation becomes a club used by those who have enabled the automation (or otherwise accumulated capital) to beat down those who have not. I think that's a terrifying idea that at best leads to terrible injustice and at worst leads to violent overthrow of its perpetrators (including myself). We need an economic model that maintains the dignity of the labor force even in the face of shrinking demand for labor.

To be clear, are you saying that the hypothetical farmer "me" in the story is being unjust and exploitative for hiring the combine? Or are you just accusing the societal system, not the hypothetical me, of being unjust and exploitative?

I ask this because I think you are actually getting at the point I was trying to make.

Yes, I'm accusing the societal system (which presents you with two exploitative alternatives), not you. I think we do fundamentally agree and that the confusion might have stemmed from the fact that I answered a question which I thought you were implying rather than your literal question.

You asked "The current system gives choices X,Y. Isn't X>Y?" and I ignored the "Isn't X>Y?" part because I assumed it was mostly a rhetorical device designed to make concrete the first part ("The current system gives choices X,Y") which was more relevant to the philosophical issue being discussed.

My answer was "Yeah, it sucks that X,Y are our choices, because I think that one of M,N,O, or P might be better."

Ultimately one of the big problems we face today is that the various central banks print money and in doing so keep the interest rate artificially low.

That artificially low interest rate makes it possible for this mechanization/automation battle to play out in many sectors of industry that it normally wouldn't.

$1mm for 10 years at 2% interest is $9200 a month, give or take.

$1mm for 10 years and 10% interest is $13200 a month, roughly.

$13200 a month is enough to provide a job, fully loaded including salary, benefits, space, etc for at least a $60k/year job, maybe $80k per year or more depending on fixed vs variable overhead, etc.

$9200 per month would, given the same assumptions, perhaps pay only $30k-$50k again depending on the mix of variable and fixed costs.

So what we've seen is that the automation "horizon" has been pushed lower by the low interest rates. And it's displaced jobs that normally would have been done by low skilled labor that while not fun were at least employment. As the pool of jobs available to low skilled folks shrinks competition gets more fierce and wages drop.

The central banks are massively more damaging than they are generally understood to be.

Then let's not call it "absurd", but "not useful".

For the sake of argument, let's agree that those who do not have their basic needs satisfied are suffering under the collective force of everybody else who could satisfy the need. What makes Amazon so special? Aren't you also exerting force on those who are less fortunate than you?

That's precisely my point.

Everybody is exerting "force" on everyone else, sometimes indirectly. The contract between Amazon and the laborer was signed under the duress of threatened homelessness / lack of healthcare / starvation. Amazon signed the contract under duress because it needs people to ship its boxes. Amazon is not special and neither is the worker.

Any deal we make must exert force on someone (a restatement of "the world isn't perfect" within our framework). So who should be favored? Put quantitatively, there's a scale between the minimum price at which a person will sell their labor and the maximum price Amazon can pay for the labor and still turn a profit -- where should the actual price lie? Market economics looks to supply/demand balance for unskilled labor and slides the "final price" all the way over to the minimum. A libertarian would claim that this is just (both parties "consented") and reject attempts by the government to meddle on the grounds that the market knows best. A philosophy that rejects the notion that both parties "consented" (both were under duress) opens the door to policy adjustments that push prices away from one extreme end of the spectrum, because it sees these as less just. Since Amazon has all the power under the current system, such policy adjustments would favor the worker.

I would prefer that this be implemented IRL using a basic income or negative income tax scheme (ameliorate (!=eliminate) the source of labor's duress at the source) rather than by implementing a minimum wage, but that's beside the point.

You entirely missed the point of the parent comment.

Amazon isn't making anyone's live's worse off. They are better off than they would be if Amazon didn't hire anyone at all and they became unemployed. If Amazon is wrong for hiring them at too low a wage, then every other company in the world is also wrong for not offering them to hire them at all.

Only if you adopt a libertarian's view of the word and concept of "force". On the other hand, if you're willing to accept that life has nuance, it makes a great deal of sense.

This is the entire point of a strike. Their work is worth what it can be purchased for. Striking workers are refusing to sell their labor at its current price.

I'm totally fine with collective bargaining.

Maybe look at validity of the logic itself, instead of just wether you like where it leads.

And by libertarian logic anyone whose cost of living is higher than his/her usual pay (at least 40 million Americans) deserves to die.

Can we please just admit that a weak point of exterme libertarianism is what happens to the weakest members of society ?

I would agree, but on the other hand an extreme libertarian would simply say, "it's a feature, not a bug".

I think that more specifically they'd say that this should be adressed by volountary charity. Which is nice in theory but ignores how inefficient that tends to be.

Not just inefficient. It's literally "the bystander effect" and "division of responsibility" principles writ large.

Bottom line: if everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible. No amount of pithy sound bites or quotes from Austrians will change that. If anything it's a wonder charities have been as successful as they have.

At least with a liberal government system, there is a single point of ultimate responsibility for issues like this: the government itself, as the legal embodiment of "the people" at large.

Nobody is exempt from the need to consume resources to survive. This is how life is.

But which way of obtaining resources is the best?

1. Trade (a voluntary interaction from which both parties expect to benefit from)

2. Charity (a voluntary interaction from which one party expects to other to benefit from)

3. Extortion (an involuntary interaction achieved through force or threats)

This conversation normally comes up in the context of taxes for #3.

To which I say, if you're willing to allow the government to deport someone who doesn't pay taxes I'd tend to agree with you, but as it stands the balance is actually tipped the other way: Government (usually local) is forced to figure out clean water, last-resort healthcare, schools, etc. simply by people being present, whether they pay taxes or not, yet government has no ability to simply "get rid" of people

I say the libertarians go find a nice area somewhere with a failed state, take it over, prove its supremacy and be a big shining beacon on the hill for libertarians everywhere to finally prove once and for all that it's better, and then I'll care about "taxes as extortion".

> So nobody forced them to accept those jobs, yet their only other option is unemployment

Also, not sure about Germany but it's not uncommon for employment offices to start withholding benefits if you refuse jobs "you're fit for". That would likely include warehouse grunt.

I'm pretty sure that's the case in Germany too.

You are right that they have no choice but wrong that it's exclusively amazon's fault. It's also the fault of every other company that won't hire them. If amazon automated it's entire workforce tomorrow and fired everyone, those people would be even worse off, yet no one would be protesting amazon over it.

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs.

Or alternatively, that most of the workers on a wage low enough that missing a day of work isn't a viable option for them.

The unions have war chests that compensate salary during strikes.

I don't know about Germany, but in the U.S. it's common that only the union leaders and negotiators get paid their normal salaries during strikes and lockouts. The rank-and-file members get a reduced amount or nothing from the union. (Or sometimes just health benefits.) For example, the recently locked-out American Crystal Sugar workers got a stipend of $100/week and no other benefits. Their normal salaries averaged about $750/week.

It depends on how recently organized the union is, and how secure those members feel and how much of that was afforded by the union. Many members of weaker industrial (not craft) unions are afraid to strike with their brothers.

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs.

One could use that argument, and the rest of the argumentation, to praise slavery. I mean it provided food, shelter and hardly anyone went on strike, right?

EDIT: I don't mean to downplay slavery. Capitalism with all it's faults is far better than slavery or even just feudalism in most or all aspects. I just think that the argument I responded to is severely flawed: Not going on strike might be a sign of satisfaction but it might as well be a sign of fear and/or a lack of alternatives.

I'm pretty sure that the US was a capitalist country when slavery was legal, it's only government regulation that stopped it.

I am not too sure about that. A market economy? Yes. But what I know as Capitalism depends on a completely different organization of labor, namely "free" workers to create a market for labor itself. That was true for non-enslaved/white workers at that time but I don't think it makes sense to say it about a whole society when its not true for such a big percentage of the economy.

The difference is slaves were forced to work and the slave master literally did make the slaves' lives worse off.

Yes, nearly everybody know that. I wrote hours ago that think working conditions in capitalism and slavery are very different, in general far better in the former, but that you could use the argumentation in favor of capitalism the parent used in favor of slavery too.

You realize that this is the labour dispute version of "literally hitler" right?

You realize that you are using a meta version of a meme instead of an actual argument?

The bad thing about "[literally] Hitler!" is that, most of the time, trivializes the Holocaust. In my "labour dispute version" of it that would have meant a trivialization of slavery which I tried to avoid in the sentence prefixed with "EDIT:". If you think I still did it please write it and add some argumentation.

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs.

What about: they are scared of being fired and their families losing roof over their head and food to eat ? Most people aren't willing to go on strike or take any risks if already bad situation. I mean, the slaves weren't on constant strike either.

> the slaves weren't on constant strike either.

Nor were they free to leave. The situations are not comparable.

Consequences of leaving as a slave: being chased, beaten, maybe killed. Consequences of leaving for Amazon workers (well at least many of them probably most of the ones not on strike): losing roof over your head, family starving, children being denied things. Slaves had it worse, the argument about it not being voluntarily decision still applies.

Are you defending the Robber Barons of the Industrial Revolution or Amazon? I really can't tell.

In all seriousness, this line of reasoning can be used to rationalize the actions of anyone who takes advantage of the destitute and marginalized to make a profit: pimps, crime lords, sweatshop managers, etc. etc.

Forgive me for not patting Amazon on the back for giving THE WORKERS THEY BASE THEIR ENTIRE ENTERPRISE ON a tiny percentage of the profits. After all, nobody applauds the trash who taunt the homeless with crumbs, even though they are technically feeding them.

Edit: I'm a terrible multi-tasker, edited to clarify some points

You're arguing that any work is better than welfare or a basic income. I disagree. You are welcome to your opinion as well though.

I wouldn't say "any work" is better. However, there is a well documented effect called "contra-freeloading", in which individuals will prefer pay for work over pay for no work - within reason. This effect has been found in humans and numerous other species. Except cats ...

This explains why I meet so many deadbeat hippies obsessed with cats and acting like cats.

> The fact that most of the workers are not on strike proves that they're satisfied with their jobs.

Or desperate not to get sacked just before Christmas.

What skills does one typically acquire as a temp packing worker in a highly automated warehouse?

It's not a "skill" per se, but demonstrating you will reliably show up on time and do your job has a definite value in the labor market, and could lead to other opportunities.

How about learning how to get along effectively with others? Or given an individual that was interested in operations, how to run a warehouse, principles of Lean, etc?

A job can be a stepping stone to a better future. Perhaps that is true here?

I think you make a very principled distinction between 'de-jure' compulsion, and 'de-facto' compulsion, but in practice, things aren't always so clear cut.

If I were to offer a single mother a large lump sum for one of her kidneys so she could feed her children, without any kind of threat, implied or otherwise, that would still be at the very least ethically problematic, don't you think?