Before people comment too much about wage inequality consider for a moment that this ins't a feudal state where people are locked into role and wage limits outside their control.
I am a software developer for one of the larger companies and also an Army Reservist. When I go away to do Army stuff I frequently encounter people who work much harder and earn much less than I do in their civilian jobs. Is that fair? I would say, it doesn't matter.
I tell those people how being a software developer generally isn't super intense or stressful and you make all this money, but yet the people I tell this to generally don't want to write software. The disparity is that a senior software development position isn't immediately free like a dinner mint at the end of dinner. You have to practice writing software really hard and really invest your time into solving hard problems. In all my experience talking about wage inequality the ultimate disparity that always arises is time spent investing in yourself without any reasonable compensation.
EDIT: I did not start programming until age 28. I was already married and had two children.
The lie in America is that everyone is good at everything and those who don't succeed aren't trying hard enough. This lie is used to make people who aren't talented believe it's due to a moral failing or character flaw and thus talented people are morally superior.
I'm a high paid software engineer. I also had amazing computer teachers and remember writing BASIC programs to play MIDI in elementary. I also have the advantage of living in the city, being a white male, and being young and social.
Being a software engineer requires a particular mindset, a lot of time and exposure, and people willing to support that. I was lucky enough to have all of the above, but most folks do not.
I'm in the midst of helping a friend who is currently a welder move into software engineering. He's extremely intelligent and has the brain for it, but it's also taken literal years, finding him a capable dev machine (a used macbook air, donated from another engineer), tutoring him (me and another engineer, going on for two years now), and now he's going to a bootcamp (which cost thousands of dollars he didn't have in his pocket).
He is still going to have to find an actual job and make the move from bootcamp to real life. That's another involved process that will require multiple people helping him.
And again, this is a young white male who has a very high aptitude for this.
It's a bit more work than "just invest in yourself!". The average computer user has difficulty searching their own email or resetting a password. Even those with natural aptitude require help - and not a trivial amount either.
Sure, but you're omitting a crucial step - a relative minority of the population were actively enabled and were able to pursue their interests/self-invest/etc. when they were much younger (read: teenaged), which gave them a snowballing competitive advantage as they got older.
I'm going to guess that the majority of people working in Amazon warehouses are well into adulthood, probably have kids, don't have above a high school education, and likely lack general computer literacy in the first place.
You're assuming 2 kids and 1 income earner, though.
It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.
Wouldn't jump to that conclusion, given that this number is a median, not a mean. The minimum full-time salary could also be $28,446 and yield the same median number, depending on how Amazon pays their bottom rung.
In the bay area, I'm currently paying 5 people 2k / mo and I've been paying them that much for about a year. They are incredibly hardworking and work about 12 hours / day. I mainly recruit from CalWorks (a public assistance program that provides cash aid and services to eligible families that have a child(ren) in the home), which is the same place that Amazon gets alot of their warehouse staff from.
Every-time I pay them, I feel a sense of guilt/discomfort. 2k / month is really hard to live on in the bay area, especially when you have kids. I want to pay them more, but its all I can afford with my current salary.
By "Work" they are learning and teaching each other JavaScript (Node, React, ReactNative, Vue, Redux, GraphQL) and building out some of my ideas. Hopefully they can find a job as a software engineer soon, it would change their lives permanently for the better!
The headline falls into what I would characterize as a "useless fact". The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees. While I'm not an advocate for Amazon's work practices, this article provides no further analysis than a copy pasted line from a financial report. We need more context and analysis if you actually want to understand whether that number is or is not unreasonable.
> The number is meant to manipulate you into clicking the article based on the belief that Amazon is unfairly compensating its employees.
How is it manipulative to report on median pay for a company? This is as straightforwardly reported as possible, and not at all click-baity or manipulative. We shouldn't be afraid of basic facts that actually capture important information in an objective way. It's not a misleading number, it provides real insights into Amazon.
There is this false assumption that people are paid what they are worth. People are paid what the market will bear. $28k is about 13/hour. For places like East TN this is not a horrible wage, and you can live on it. As a comparison, an entry-level position in the military, E1, makes less even when you account for allowances.
> There is this false assumption that people are paid what they are worth.
Who thinks this? I don't know any adult who is that naive.
> People are paid what the market will bear.
In many industries, the employer side of the market is vastly more powerful than the employee. The employer can just pass on an employee asking for too much money; an employee may be facing weeks without a job, which is difficult for most people to afford.
In those situations, the market can bear quite a bit more than it has to, which is the reason minimum-wage requirements don't kill most industries.
> For places like East TN this is not a horrible wage, and you can live on it.
That's true if the government is protecting the employee with a safety nets, like welfare and ACA, and laws, like COBRA. A better-paid employee could save more money and provide their own safety net, as many high earners do with rainy-day accounts, investments, passive income, etc.
Because Amazon employees aren't necessarily saving enough to afford to build their own safety nets, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing Amazon.
> As a comparison, an entry-level position in the military, E1, makes less even when you account for allowances.
I'm not sure this is apples-to-apples because military benefits are substantial, and the most major downside to military service (the risk of being sent into armed combat) is very difficult to put into monetary terms.
The first part of your comment relates to an ideological view I disagree with, but at least is a fair argument to make in advocating we go about our lives and not concern ourselves with issues of low pay -- that the market is self-correcting and best to leave it alone. And I'd argue we structure our society in the way that we think achieves the outcomes we want. A normal debate to have.
But it does bother me when workers are pitted against one another, like you pitting underpaid warehouse workers against the military. We see this a lot. Fast food workers should try to negotiate for higher pay because teachers make X. Etc etc. If you think military pay is too low, then argue for higher military pay.
says E1-E3 are for basic training and first assignment, and E4 is $25k/yr. Plus I suppose (not sure) that military has much better health insurance (and other benefits, like food and maybe housing?) than Amazon warehouse employees
Median is the appropriate measure to use if you're looking at the overall pay of a company's workforce.
Average/mean is disproportionately influenced by a small number of highly paid employees.
In this case, the article is clearly demonstrating that despite Amazon's commanding market share, incredible wealth, and the largess bestowed upon their executives, some of their workforce is so poorly paid that they may not even make a living wage.
Yes, I agree. Mean is obviously going to be to the right of median in this income distribution, since there will be many employees making 200k+.
>In Seattle, Amazon’s more than 45,000 employees are paid an average of more than $110,000, according to an analysis of individual worker data posted to job review site Glassdoor. The median, or midpoint, of Amazon’s 566,000 individual employee salaries worldwide stood far lower.
Granted, we are using average data from Glassdoor, whereas Amazon is self-reporting the median salary information. Plus, Amazon has part-time workers whose wages it annualizes to include the dataset. This makes me wonder though, are they counting the benefits that those workers are not receiving due to their lower number of hours?
Replying to myself: I didn't mean to imply that the article or its contents are manipulative; I merely meant that it's a good example of how different numbers can be, and how that is often used to manipulate perception.
Not to mention that this means the lower half of wage earners at Amazon make an average of $14 an hour, which isn't terrible for, what we can assume is, mostly unskilled labor.
>> Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos received $1,681,840 in compensation in 2017, the proxy statement said, $1.6 million of which represents the cost of providing his security.
Is that pretty typical for a person who is say, in the richest 5-100 people in the world to spend on security? What kind of protection does that buy?
$14 an hour is not as bad as you think. Median nursing salary in England = 23300 pounds = 32300 usd. So the median amazon warehouse worker makes 87% of what the median nurse makes in the U.K. Is that really so bad?
Amazon employs significantly more workers that are stocking warehouses and filling boxes than are writing code. So the median Amazon worker by pay is working in a warehouse, probably entry-level or thereabouts, and is making about $14 an hour.
The thing is, direct conversions do not really work. I don't think they operate much in Brazil, but if they did, the salaries would be adjusted to the Brazillian reality (minimum wage, average person income, purchasing power, etc), so in reality, it would be much less than 28 grand USD.
The more real conversion is to use a purchasing power index, such as the big-mac index. Using the 2018 data for the big-mac index, that would probably equate to mostly 30.000,00 BRL, which is 2500 BRL/month, which is above Brazil's minimum wage, but it's still a very basic salary, probably comparable to earning 2200,00 USD in the US.
That's more than a junior yearly salary for a software engineer with a degree where I'm from though. With higher taxes, higher prices for consumer electronics and much more expensive gasoline.
Thinks what's normal exactly? That not all of his employees get paid an equal amount? I'm inclined to agree that he thinks that's normal, yes. Given that it's true at almost every company in the world, that seems like a reasonable position.
It's driven by Amazon's low prices just as much as it is driven by Bezos' wealth. Customers get the benefit of the low prices.
I'm not saying that to congratulate Amazon, I'm pointing out that there are more people involved than Amazon shareholders and employees, people who apparently put low prices ahead of any concerns they have over compensation at Amazon.
Equality of what? Should one of the people who works in their warehouse in North Carolina make equal pay with a software engineer who lives in Seattle?
[+] [-] austincheney|8 years ago|reply
I am a software developer for one of the larger companies and also an Army Reservist. When I go away to do Army stuff I frequently encounter people who work much harder and earn much less than I do in their civilian jobs. Is that fair? I would say, it doesn't matter.
I tell those people how being a software developer generally isn't super intense or stressful and you make all this money, but yet the people I tell this to generally don't want to write software. The disparity is that a senior software development position isn't immediately free like a dinner mint at the end of dinner. You have to practice writing software really hard and really invest your time into solving hard problems. In all my experience talking about wage inequality the ultimate disparity that always arises is time spent investing in yourself without any reasonable compensation.
EDIT: I did not start programming until age 28. I was already married and had two children.
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorpalhex|8 years ago|reply
Being a software engineer requires a particular mindset, a lot of time and exposure, and people willing to support that. I was lucky enough to have all of the above, but most folks do not.
I'm in the midst of helping a friend who is currently a welder move into software engineering. He's extremely intelligent and has the brain for it, but it's also taken literal years, finding him a capable dev machine (a used macbook air, donated from another engineer), tutoring him (me and another engineer, going on for two years now), and now he's going to a bootcamp (which cost thousands of dollars he didn't have in his pocket).
He is still going to have to find an actual job and make the move from bootcamp to real life. That's another involved process that will require multiple people helping him.
And again, this is a young white male who has a very high aptitude for this.
It's a bit more work than "just invest in yourself!". The average computer user has difficulty searching their own email or resetting a password. Even those with natural aptitude require help - and not a trivial amount either.
[+] [-] Tyrek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nylonstrung|8 years ago|reply
How should they move into software engineering?
[+] [-] baby|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elicash|8 years ago|reply
"130% of the poverty line for a three-person family is $2,213 a month, or about $26,600 a year." https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-...
[+] [-] epicureanideal|8 years ago|reply
It's above minimum wage. If we say that's not enough, we should raise minimum wage. Or we should create a society where it's possible for the people currently working for $26k/yr to have a stable roadmap to much higher earnings. But I don't think Amazon alone is to blame for the problem.
[+] [-] mchannon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aje403|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonknee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] songzme|8 years ago|reply
Every-time I pay them, I feel a sense of guilt/discomfort. 2k / month is really hard to live on in the bay area, especially when you have kids. I want to pay them more, but its all I can afford with my current salary.
By "Work" they are learning and teaching each other JavaScript (Node, React, ReactNative, Vue, Redux, GraphQL) and building out some of my ideas. Hopefully they can find a job as a software engineer soon, it would change their lives permanently for the better!
[+] [-] sol_remmy|8 years ago|reply
You're doing incredible work though. You're allowing them to essentially apprenticeship with you to learn software development. Bravo sir
[+] [-] pg_bot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elicash|8 years ago|reply
How is it manipulative to report on median pay for a company? This is as straightforwardly reported as possible, and not at all click-baity or manipulative. We shouldn't be afraid of basic facts that actually capture important information in an objective way. It's not a misleading number, it provides real insights into Amazon.
[+] [-] colek42|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smt88|8 years ago|reply
Who thinks this? I don't know any adult who is that naive.
> People are paid what the market will bear.
In many industries, the employer side of the market is vastly more powerful than the employee. The employer can just pass on an employee asking for too much money; an employee may be facing weeks without a job, which is difficult for most people to afford.
In those situations, the market can bear quite a bit more than it has to, which is the reason minimum-wage requirements don't kill most industries.
> For places like East TN this is not a horrible wage, and you can live on it.
That's true if the government is protecting the employee with a safety nets, like welfare and ACA, and laws, like COBRA. A better-paid employee could save more money and provide their own safety net, as many high earners do with rainy-day accounts, investments, passive income, etc.
Because Amazon employees aren't necessarily saving enough to afford to build their own safety nets, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing Amazon.
> As a comparison, an entry-level position in the military, E1, makes less even when you account for allowances.
I'm not sure this is apples-to-apples because military benefits are substantial, and the most major downside to military service (the risk of being sent into armed combat) is very difficult to put into monetary terms.
[+] [-] lotsofpulp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elicash|8 years ago|reply
But it does bother me when workers are pitted against one another, like you pitting underpaid warehouse workers against the military. We see this a lot. Fast food workers should try to negotiate for higher pay because teachers make X. Etc etc. If you think military pay is too low, then argue for higher military pay.
[+] [-] gowld|8 years ago|reply
says E1-E3 are for basic training and first assignment, and E4 is $25k/yr. Plus I suppose (not sure) that military has much better health insurance (and other benefits, like food and maybe housing?) than Amazon warehouse employees
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] randyrand|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nathanaldensr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaysonelliot|8 years ago|reply
Average/mean is disproportionately influenced by a small number of highly paid employees.
In this case, the article is clearly demonstrating that despite Amazon's commanding market share, incredible wealth, and the largess bestowed upon their executives, some of their workforce is so poorly paid that they may not even make a living wage.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|8 years ago|reply
>In Seattle, Amazon’s more than 45,000 employees are paid an average of more than $110,000, according to an analysis of individual worker data posted to job review site Glassdoor. The median, or midpoint, of Amazon’s 566,000 individual employee salaries worldwide stood far lower.
Granted, we are using average data from Glassdoor, whereas Amazon is self-reporting the median salary information. Plus, Amazon has part-time workers whose wages it annualizes to include the dataset. This makes me wonder though, are they counting the benefits that those workers are not receiving due to their lower number of hours?
[+] [-] nathanaldensr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fortythirteen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aje403|8 years ago|reply
Seattletimes.com
Don't they like Amazon out there or did the author fail an interview for Amazon or something?
[+] [-] bluedino|8 years ago|reply
Is that pretty typical for a person who is say, in the richest 5-100 people in the world to spend on security? What kind of protection does that buy?
[+] [-] hjnilsson|8 years ago|reply
100 * 2 * 16 * 365 = $1.16 million
Count in that they need travel, food and hotels along with Bezos, and it’s not unreasonable or excessive.
[+] [-] sol_remmy|8 years ago|reply
Source on median salary: https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Registered_Nurse_(R...
[+] [-] elgenie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] goshx|8 years ago|reply
No idea if they operate in Brazil, but using it as an example, USD $28,446 in Brazil is a great salary.
[+] [-] matheus2740|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swebs|8 years ago|reply
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N...
[+] [-] throwaway637h|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seattle_spring|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NegativeLatency|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oliwarner|8 years ago|reply
I can only imagine it shunts the median up a long way.
[+] [-] ommunist|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stevespang|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DimitarIbra9987|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unpopular42|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sputniq|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdoliner|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxerickson|8 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that to congratulate Amazon, I'm pointing out that there are more people involved than Amazon shareholders and employees, people who apparently put low prices ahead of any concerns they have over compensation at Amazon.
[+] [-] SE4L|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]