If geeks love it, we’re on it
If geeks love it, we’re on it
You found the friendliest gaming & tech geeks around. Say hello!
primesuspect
The Curator of Delightful Experiences Admin, D&D Supernerd, Supporter, Expo Attendee
Icrontic — Home of the Big Beef Burrito since 8-8-2000, fool. A Short-Media community © 2003–2013. Powered with <3 from Vanilla & WordPress.
Articles RSS
Comments
This is the disgusting result of a society where everything revolves around making as much money as possible. Oddly it's consumer demands that force companies to create conditions like this in order to stay in business. It's because people feel entitled to things like free shipping and getting their order in just a few days that workers are held to such unrealistic expectations for fear of customers taking their business somewhere else. It's pretty sad to see that the standards created to improve the factory work conditions of more than 100 years ago don't seem to apply to the relatively new business of an online shopping warehouse.
From the Israeli representative to the General Assembly of the UN, link. This is referencing the slave trade directly, but is appropriate in a whole slew of contexts.
It's terrible that in a world where 'human rights' are valued so highly by society that conditions like this are allowed, not only to exist, but to continue.
Although I've made very few purchases from online sources I still feel horrible for doing it because I KNOW that people are experiencing such horrible conditions specifically so that my order can arrive within 3 days of placing said order. That said I've made it a habit of grabbing most everything I want from local shops/stores regardless of a price increase compared to online businesses but I can't and won't use that as a 'moral high ground' conditions within the Capitalist system are terrible period and until society as a whole takes a different stance on consumerism we will be forced to live in a reality where situations like this not only exist but are encouraged by the system itself.
No matter what economic system you choose, you're going to have those that abuse it. Rather than focusing on the corporations at the top, try thinking about how the system we have benefits the many, many small to midsized businesses that account for a much, much larger part of the economy as a whole.
...or just stick to the talking points of the internet. That's cool too.
What I wonder is if we were outraged enough when GameStop removed OnLive vouchers to call for a boycott... why can't we boycott Amazon for treating their workers poorly?
Size of Firm
Number of Employees (%total)
Annual Payroll (%total)
Revenues (%total)
Small ( <250 )<br />
28.9
24.1
20.3
Medium (250 < x < 750)
10.5
9.7
10.6
Large ( >750 )
60.6
66.1
69.0
Simplified math from my excel-ing, please feel free to correct. I'm staying non-partisan, dearest mods!
Fine, we can use those numbers I'm not sure why you took this outside the PM, and we're not really accomplishing anything, but for the sake of it sales =/ revenues. There are costs of sales associated with each product, which chew into the revenue of a company many times over, depending on your market. Payroll is misleading, IMO, due to various industries and payscales associated with such.
If you want to focus solely on number of employees hired, fine. As I said in the PM I feel a company as large as 1200 employees is still small, IMO. Large enough to be publicly traded might make the best benchmark (since everyone on the internet loves the bottom line argument), but even then small firms and startups can have IPOs to market (and produce absolutely no revenue, either).
I appreciate your input there, and if you adjust the numbers as you stated (for what I have available), the argument gets much closer! I don't know that I agree that large enough to be publicly traded is the best benchmark, but I'm also much less knowledgeable than you and others about that issue (I've been much more aware of politics than financials over the last 5 years or so). Large enough to be publicly traded would just be hard to pin down due to companies like Koch Industries, Cargill, et al being enormous but private. Where would you draw the line as "large enough"?
After adjusted numbers (employees):
small x <1250 ---------- 42.4%<br />Medium 1250 < x < 5000 -- 8.3%
Large x > 5000 --------- 49.3%
Issue with raising hourly rates for these workers is that it ultimately raises the rate for the "skilled" labor you're also hiring in, say, a general and administrative category of cost expense analysis (your supply chain management graduate, for instance). Costs go up across the board, which in the long run ends up doing more harm than good. It's a tricky balance.
Any significant change for the positive is going to cost the first company to implement it a ton of money because people are just going to shop elsewhere because it's cheaper...and no company wants to be first on that front. Everyone would have to implement at roughly the same time. The drawback there is that product and/or shipping prices would increase a slight amount, affecting the (largely uninformed and uncaring) consumer who will endlessly scream about how the companies are all colluding to increase profits on the backs of the consumer. Doesn't matter what the truth is.