1513
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Nomad@infosec.pub 70 points 2 months ago

I genuinely see the point and I think the argumentation that he can afford it is also sound. But the flaw is that Bezos will just hand off the cost to consumers. This won't affect his income or wealth at all. We need measures that target anti competitive behaviors and monopoly building as well as taxing people that have way too much.

[-] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 37 points 2 months ago

Too big to fail just also happens to be too big to care.

Competition is good for the consumer and keeps prices low automatically.

[-] disorderly@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

In my opinion, too big to fail means too big to risk it. Nationalize Amazon.

[-] mobyduck648@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Too big to fail == too big to live, at least it would be in a sane world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Competition is so rarely a thing though. The barriers to entry are significant enough that if you actually go through them all... why wouldn't you just price shop and then charge about the same as your "competitors"? You don't need to talk to effectively collude.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] arrow74@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

That's the thing though, the price will not go to the consumer. People use Amazon for the convenience and the fact that it is often cheaper than going to the store yourself.

If suddenly it's more expensive than the store it really incentives going to the store. And that is precisely why prices will remain the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Of course he'll hand the cost off to consumers. As if his wedding yacht ring, like everything else he does, wasn't directly financed primarily by his consumer-facing business!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Tilgare@lemmy.world 52 points 2 months ago

What he's actually saying is, "I won't spend the money to provide the level of service we have been up to this point." Because there's nothing Mamdani has done here that will cost jobs or slow delivery times - Jeff is the one cutting jobs and slowing delivery times. Maybe New Yorkers will just stop shopping Amazon when they downgrade their services, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[-] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

NYC is so dense and populous, there would instantly be space in the market for someone else to offer same/next day delivery for most common items if Amazon decides to start killing off its golden geese like that (being America's #1 source of shit ordered online is just one of them).

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 49 points 1 month ago

What about the fact that it's ok if deliveries are slower? How many of the things that people buy online, whether from Amazon or not, actually need to be same day or next day? If there were options for "just sometime in the next month", I'd chose that.

Of course, I understand that be a logistics nightmare to schedule, I'm only making the argument that delivery speed is a more a luxury than necessity. As is Amazon itself.

[-] False@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Amazon actually does have that option for deliveries. It's typically labeled either "Amazon Day" (where they try to group orders into fewer deliveries / boxes, though it's pretty mixed on that), or No Rush (where it might be a week out and they give you a dollar credit for something as an incentive).

Though that's usually more "in the next week or so" than "next month"

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BillyClark@piefed.social 38 points 1 month ago

One of the best arguments against this type of propaganda is to look at what actually happened in places where they treat their workers more fairly.

Like, you hear people say that fast food would become prohibitively expensive if we raise the minimum wage, but when you look at countries where they have decent minimum wages, the fast food there is basically the same price. Maybe pennies more.

The best way to combat this propaganda is simply to experiment or call their bluff. You know, try it out and see what actually happens. When NYC does this and nothing bad happens, maybe that will be a clue to other cities.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Fast food is a crazy example they point to. You'll spend 12-15 dollars a person easily at fast food places these days, and they serve hundreds of customer an hour. Giving the entire staff a $15/hr raise would be an extra 2-4% to the cost of a meal.

If you have 5 employees working the shop and average 100 meals an hour, you're looking at an extra $0.75 per meal to give each employee and additional $15/hour - which is a life-changing raise at a cost customers wouldn't even notice.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Like, you hear people say that fast food would become prohibitively expensive if we raise the minimum wage

You don't even have to scale this to countries. Cities with a higher min wage have proven better results.

[-] Kurtismayfield@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

All you have to say is Scandinavia. Any corporatist concern trolling can be countered by a policy in a Scandinavian country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sunspear@piefed.social 30 points 1 month ago

$600 a year... on extra delivery costs on the average household?

... How much are americans ordering online?

[-] bold_atlas@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My online orders dropped off to basically nothing since the tariffs began. Now I buy EVERYTHING from brick and mortar just like the good old days.

And I'm never going back to the online shopping horse shit either. At least with stores you can shoplift guilt free with zero carbon footprint.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 month ago

USA Amazon user. A lot. But I have better financials than many.

Example: Cat litter that we prefer comes in 25lb boxes. Why lug that when it can come to your door? I don't think my spouse could even lift it due to an injury. But I feed the Bezos machine and I'm not proud of it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If Amazon can't operate a delivery business without blatantly exploiting workers and "subcontractors" (between brackets because the subcontractors don't operate independent at all), then they shouldn't operate a delivery business. Leave it to the companies that do respect worker's rights.

The exploitative system that Amazon wants to maintain:
*As the mayor’s office said Monday, at least 11 last-mile facilities have opened across New York City since 2020, with subcontractors running the warehouses as Amazon directs the hiring of delivery drivers, the routes they use, and requires them to use Amazon-branded vehicles and uniforms.

But while exerting control over the deliveries, Amazon pushes responsibility for the vehicles used onto the subcontractors, as delivery workers explained in a video released on social media by Mamdani on Monday.

“When injuries and worker accidents skyrocket, Amazon says they have nothing to do with it. They can’t have it both ways,” said the workers.*
https://www.commondreams.org/news/delivery-protection-act-nyc

We had a similar situation in my country (Belgium) a few years back, where the most exploitative delivery company was PostNL. The government raided and seized their warehouses for a good while, locked up a few executives for a shorter while, and then unfortunately failed to get convictions, so only administrative fines were handed out. Even though there were no significant fines, it did scare the sector and working conditions have improved since then, which anecdotally had the following consequences: shops offer choices when it comes to delivery (fake next day delivery is no longer standard, but requires a premium), cost per order went up a tiny bit (no more free delivery for small orders + next day delivery is more expensive), and deliveries became more reliable again (delivery time tables are easier to accomplish for the workers if they're not mathematically impossible).

[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 1 month ago

It's called a 'sham contract' and are (mostly) illegal in Australia, but are still pretty rife. The driving school I used to work for basically had that set-up, which was why I didn't stick around.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] daychilde@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

Fox News is the very definition of billionaie propaganda.

[-] Avicenna@programming.dev 17 points 1 month ago

he wasn't this concerned with tariffs increasing prices. probably was convinced to remove the tariffs warning after someone told him he would get double paid eventually.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 16 points 2 months ago

fox news was always billionaire propaganda, culture war is thier side business to reinforced the billionaire propaganda.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

Nit. We seriously need to divorce benefits from employment. Especially healthcare. I still hear people say the company pays $X for my healthcare. No fuck they do not. You have a total compensation package that includes the cash part of your salary as well as how much of what could have been your cash part was diverted to pay for healthcare. Have you ever been handed a piece of paper where they itemize your pay? You get $40k and then there’s another line where it says $10k for healthcare etc so they really pay you $50k? Well on the one hand that’s true. The company pays you. You pay for everything else. You just don’t see all of it. They usually give you that paper during raise time to justify lower raises.

We need a mental shift in this country. People need to stop believing companies give you stuff.

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In their mind, all costs should be born by the consumer (and employees, of course), and none taken from their profits.

Forever.

They demand higher profits every quarter. It has to come from somewhere, and it won't be from their pile of gold.

This is why our government shouldn't base policy on what they want. They want everything, it's a given. We know

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kablez@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Translation: FOX News is promoting threats of econonomic terrorism against the general public on behalf of Jeff Bezos

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago

FOX News is the billionaire propaganda mouthpiece. It's all it does.

Well, MAGA ideology propaganda, but same thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bampop@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Scaling that down by a factor of 50,000, it's like having a net worth of $5.52 million, and a boat worth $10,000. You spent $1,100 on your wedding and bought your wife a ring worth $100.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

And if you did that each day of your life you still couldn’t spend as much as Bezos is worth in on lifetime.

[-] testaccount789@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago
[-] bampop@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Just putting it at a level that we could relate to, like someone who is comfortably wealthy but not insanely wealthy. What we see as ludicrous extravagance is cheap and trivial to someone like Bezos.

[-] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 month ago

And go down another two decimal places to see how stupidly cheap it really would be. At the average US salary (in some states) of $50,000 it'd be like if you threw an $11 wedding and spent an entire dollar on your wife's ring.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DGen@piefed.zip 7 points 2 months ago

They really have an attitude to shift shit like this on the people instead of taking good Business strategies up

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 7 points 1 month ago

What he is really saying is that he can't offer the same level of service at the same cost - and still maintain his OBSCENE profit margin.

I'm tired of these Sociopathic Oligarchs acting like they are entitled to those ridiculous levels of profit, and any "solutions" we suggest need to preserve their profits FIRST, then somehow solve our problems after that.

No, those outrageous profits are the EXACT problem. Those profits should have been shared by the workers who earned them, instead of going 100% to the guy at the top who did literally nothing to earn it.

So he will maintain the same level of service, at the same costs, and he will just have to buy one less yacht, or private jet, or Italian Palazzo this year.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] updn@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

You don’t get rich without exploiting. No wait, I mean you don’t keep your shareholders rich without exploiting.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

This is why regulation is necessary. The moonshots returned $14 for every $1 spent thanks to science and innovation we benefited from it. Lobbying government returns $120 for every $1 spent.

Financialization returns exponentially more. In fact, most of the billionaires that exist are finance bros that got rich from private equity and market manipulation. Stock buybacks are a recent number-go-up tactic. These things, like rent-seeking, don't actually produce value but make profit.

So when we say the ultra-wealthy got rich by exploiting, we are totally underestimating the amount of wrongdoing they are committing.

But then Marx notes in Das Kapital that the capitalist will always seek to capture government and regulatory bodies in order to game the system, thereby destabilizing it until it collapses. The process feeds on itself and gets worse at an accellerating rate.

Unless something very radical is done, civilization worldwide is going to fall.

[-] Smug_Marmot@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 month ago

Wait, he only gave her a $5M ring? Was he only applying taxable income to the two-month rule? /s

[-] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Those amazon workers don't even work for amazon, they work for contractors who pay way under the typical wage of UPS and FedEx.

Mamdani creates delivery network for NY, uses delivery revenue to pay livable salaries for drivers instead of buying himself a mega-yacht.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

I don't twitter, but wasn't unusual_whales a senate stock tracker? When'd they sell out?

[-] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

You either die an unusual whale or live long enough to become a usual whale.

[-] Klear@piefed.world 5 points 2 months ago
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago

What an odd place for petunias..

[-] chewypoops@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Andy Jassy is the luckyest Billionaire CEO alive, since leftists have literally never heard of him and throw all their criticisms of Amazon at his predecessor...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
1513 points (99.5% liked)

Work Reform

18074 readers
231 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS