Amazon minimum wage increase

[hammies]

Bezos' stock holdings are worth $162B. His take home last year was $1.6M.

https://www1.salary.com/Jeffrey-P-Bezos-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-Amazon-Com-Inc.html

FWIW he did sell $900M of stock last year and $1.4B worth the year before, which is not exactly "compensation". So he's doing OK.

 

[grapedrink]

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world, literally, and his slaves are not making a living wage.

2017 Amazon profits: $3 billion https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2018/02/01/amazon-grows-revenue-31-2017-profit-tops-3-billion/

number of employees: 566,000 according to a quick google search

Divide all of the profits per employee and you get $5300 per employee, if they all took home an equal piece of the pie. Divide that by 2000 hours/year (40 hrs/wk * 50 weeks) and that equals a $2.65/hour raise.

Would a $2.65/hour raise help? Absolutely. But even a raise based on all profits divided equally would not make it a living raise. After taxes, you are talking an extra $300/month. Again, that's with all of the profits divided amongst the workers, and nothing for the owners/investors.

CEO bonuses and compensation relative to what the plebians make are lame, but once you do the math, the "injustice" is largely symbolic.

$3 billion?

Oh please

Before any "profit" Amazon made, Bezos personally took $162 Billion home.

Have you ever taken a basic economics class :confused2:
"The e-retailer generated $177.9 billion in revenue in 2017, up 30.8% from $136.00 billion in 2016. Its net income also climbed 27.8% to $3.03 billion from $2.37 billion in 2016."

Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is all of the gross sales. Profits or "Net Income" are what's left over after the bills are paid.

$2-3 billion is a lot of money, but it is nowhere near $162 Billion. Nobody on earth pulls in that kind of income. The wealthiest person on earth probably does not have that much money in the bank. It's not until you start counting real estate, investment assets, etc that you start getting net worths in the 100s of billions.

You can do that same math, profits divided by number of employees, for all of the most evil, greedy corporations and get similar results. But that would require a basic understanding of economics, which you don't seem to have

 

[FecalFace]

The point of my post is that NOBODY should work a 40 hour week and be needing government help to survive.

You jumped through a lot of hoops to try to prove that Amazon can't afford it, which is bullshit.

The profit these companies make is insane.

The wage stagnation is 100% due to the greed.

Like Chouinard said, the elephant in the room is growth. Public companies have to grow 15 percent a year. They’re being pulled all the time to grow by Wall Street gamblers and greed. Nobody else benefits from this but top 2%.

 

[Autoprax]

The super rich need the middle class to protect them.

They are killing the goose.

Their compounds in NZ won't protect them.

 

[grapedrink]

The point of my post is that NOBODY should work a 40 hour week and be needing government help to survive.

You jumped through a lot of hoops to try to prove that Amazon can't afford it, which is bullshit.

The profit these companies make is insane.

The wage stagnation is 100% due to the greed.

Like Chouinard said, the elephant in the room is growth. Public companies have to grow 15 percent a year. They’re being pulled all the time to grow by Wall Street gamblers and greed. Nobody else benefits from this but top 2%.

Jumped through hoops :confused2: So dividing total profits by total number of employees = jumping through hoops :confused2:
It’s simple math that clearly illustrates that the amount of profit, while enormous compared to the average workers pay, would not make much of a difference if it were distributed more equitably among workers.
If this is BS, please point out how, but with actual facts
I do agree that nobody should work a full time job and be on public assistance, but the only way to pay them more would be for companies to charge more money. It really is that simple, unfortunately. Chouinard can afford to because he sells $300 jackets that probably cost less than $30 to make. $3 B profit on $162 B revenue is not even a 2% margin.

Also, do you have a mutual fund or 401k :confused2: If so, then you yes you also benefit from profits of publicly traded corporations

 

[potato-nator]

I will mark this as another W for Trump

yup.
go Donald go!

 

[Autoprax]

Post hoc everywhere I look.

 

[Billy Ocean]

The super rich need the middle class to protect them.

They are killing the goose.

Their compounds in NZ won't protect them.

Sex bots and drugs will probably take most of the edge off

 

[Ifallalot]

So apparently this is actually a big loss for many employees since they are now losing performance-based bonuses and stock options.

 

[grapedrink]

So apparently this is actually a big loss for many employees since they are now losing performance-based bonuses and stock options.

While Bezos pulls in $162 B a year, according to the Sarevejo School of Economics

 

[StuAzole]

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world, literally, and his slaves are not making a living wage.

2017 Amazon profits: $3 billion https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2018/02/01/amazon-grows-revenue-31-2017-profit-tops-3-billion/

number of employees: 566,000 according to a quick google search

Divide all of the profits per employee and you get $5300 per employee, if they all took home an equal piece of the pie. Divide that by 2000 hours/year (40 hrs/wk * 50 weeks) and that equals a $2.65/hour raise.

Would a $2.65/hour raise help? Absolutely. But even a raise based on all profits divided equally would not make it a living raise. After taxes, you are talking an extra $300/month. Again, that's with all of the profits divided amongst the workers, and nothing for the owners/investors.

CEO bonuses and compensation relative to what the plebians make are lame, but once you do the math, the "injustice" is largely symbolic.

$3 billion?

Oh please

Before any "profit" Amazon made, Bezos personally took $162 Billion home.

Have you ever taken a basic economics class :confused2:
"The e-retailer generated $177.9 billion in revenue in 2017, up 30.8% from $136.00 billion in 2016. Its net income also climbed 27.8% to $3.03 billion from $2.37 billion in 2016."

Revenue does not equal profit. Revenue is all of the gross sales. Profits or "Net Income" are what's left over after the bills are paid.

$2-3 billion is a lot of money, but it is nowhere near $162 Billion. Nobody on earth pulls in that kind of income. The wealthiest person on earth probably does not have that much money in the bank. It's not until you start counting real estate, investment assets, etc that you start getting net worths in the 100s of billions.

You can do that same math, profits divided by number of employees, for all of the most evil, greedy corporations and get similar results. But that would require a basic understanding of economics, which you don't seem to have

Maybe if I kept reading this thread instead of posting right away I'd have seen that someone else pointed out that Amazon did show any sort of profit for years and years and years, and years and years. Yet Bezos has been one of the richest men in the world for years and years and years, and years and years.

So, yes, in fact Bezos did take billions and billions before Amazon took any profit.

 

[FecalFace]

So apparently this is actually a big loss for many employees since they are now losing performance-based bonuses and stock options.

While Bezos pulls in $162 B a year, according to the Sarevejo School of Economics

Eat sh!t. Where did I say Bezos makes $162b a year?

I made my point clear.

You went on using high school economics to justify Amazon paying pitty wages because they can't afford it.

LOL

PS I never went to school in Sarajevo but there are many smarter people than dummies like you there.

 

[StuAzole]

So apparently this is actually a big loss for many employees since they are now losing performance-based bonuses and stock options.

While Bezos pulls in $162 B a year, according to the Sarevejo School of Economics

As a side note, Amazon typically reinvests its profits in new businesses, hence the low overall profit and years of losses. The reality is that Amazon could spend way more than $2.50 and hour extra on workers and never even notice the difference.

As a second side note, Bezos doesn't owe any employee more than the market demands. It's good business to pay more if you can, but he started the company and turned it into what it is today - he's under no obligation to share any of that.

 

[grapedrink]

Eat sh!t. Where did I say Bezos makes $162b a year?

From your post above: " Bezos personally took $162 Billion home."

PS I never went to school in Sarajevo but there are many smarter people than dummies like you there.

Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between revenue and profit.

You went on using high school economics to justify Amazon paying pitty wages because they can't afford it.

It's a simple formula. Total profits divided by number of employees. Where's the flaw in that argument :confused2: The only way for them to pay more would be for them to charge more

 

[grapedrink]

As a side note, Amazon typically reinvests its profits in new businesses, hence the low overall profit and years of losses. The reality is that Amazon could spend way more than $2.50 and hour extra on workers and never even notice the difference.

So do nearly all businesses, at least the ones who want to stay relevant. Not unique to Amazon, Wal Mart, McD's, etc, although I'd be curious to see how much per year. Either way, that money is not going to Bezos or the employees.

Also, my math assumes that ALL of the profits were distributed equally, which would never fly in real life. Bezos wants his piece of the pie, as do the shareholders.

As a second side note, Bezos doesn't owe any employee more than the market demands. It's good business to pay more if you can, but he started the company and turned it into what it is today - he's under no obligation to share any of that.

Agreed

 

[FecalFace]

Eat sh!t. Where did I say Bezos makes $162b a year?

From your post above: " Bezos personally took $162 Billion home."

PS I never went to school in Sarajevo but there are many smarter people than dummies like you there.

Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between revenue and profit.

A: where did I say that Bezos takes 162 billion a year, dumbfuck?

B. Again, eat sh!t. I didn't use ad hominems in my posts. If you think it's cool to say that, eat sh!t.
I've never went to school or lived in Sarajevo but I know many people from there who are way smarter than you.

Fvcktard.

You keep ignoring valid points people bring up and keep going on about your economic "expertise"

LOL

 

[StuAzole]

As a side note, Amazon typically reinvests its profits in new businesses, hence the low overall profit and years of losses. The reality is that Amazon could spend way more than $2.50 and hour extra on workers and never even notice the difference.

So do nearly all businesses, at least the ones who want to stay relevant. Not unique to Amazon, Wal Mart, McD's, etc, although I'd be curious to see how much per year. Either way, that money is not going to Bezos or the employees.

Also, my math assumes that ALL of the profits were distributed equally, which would never fly in real life. Bezos wants his piece of the pie, as do the shareholders.

As a second side note, Bezos doesn't owe any employee more than the market demands. It's good business to pay more if you can, but he started the company and turned it into what it is today - he's under no obligation to share any of that.

Agreed

Actually, they could have been profitable years sooner, but the strategy was to sacrifice profit for scale. Bezos played a long game like few before him ever dreamed of. Walmart, McD's etc. can't be compared to Amazon in that way at all.

 

[FecalFace]

As a side note, Amazon typically reinvests its profits in new businesses, hence the low overall profit and years of losses. The reality is that Amazon could spend way more than $2.50 and hour extra on workers and never even notice the difference.

So do nearly all businesses, at least the ones who want to stay relevant. Not unique to Amazon, Wal Mart, McD's, etc, although I'd be curious to see how much per year. Either way, that money is not going to Bezos or the employees.

Also, my math assumes that ALL of the profits were distributed equally, which would never fly in real life. Bezos wants his piece of the pie, as do the shareholders.

As a second side note, Bezos doesn't owe any employee more than the market demands. It's good business to pay more if you can, but he started the company and turned it into what it is today - he's under no obligation to share any of that.

Agreed

The market pays so little because of people like Bezos.

He's the one dictating what market pays, being the market leader.

Wage stagnation exists because of people like Bezos.

 

[StuAzole]

As a side note, Amazon typically reinvests its profits in new businesses, hence the low overall profit and years of losses. The reality is that Amazon could spend way more than $2.50 and hour extra on workers and never even notice the difference.

So do nearly all businesses, at least the ones who want to stay relevant. Not unique to Amazon, Wal Mart, McD's, etc, although I'd be curious to see how much per year. Either way, that money is not going to Bezos or the employees.

Also, my math assumes that ALL of the profits were distributed equally, which would never fly in real life. Bezos wants his piece of the pie, as do the shareholders.

As a second side note, Bezos doesn't owe any employee more than the market demands. It's good business to pay more if you can, but he started the company and turned it into what it is today - he's under no obligation to share any of that.

Agreed

The market pays so little because of people like Bezos.

He's the one dictating what market pays, being the market leader.

Wage stagnation exists because of people like Bezos.

The market leader in what?

Wal Mart employs WAY more people than Amazon. Plus, Amazon's footprint is in all sorts of businesses, from grocery to books to you name it. Amazon doesn't control market forces at the lower end of the pay scale in any way, shape or form.

In fact, I couldn't find one state where Amazon was the largest private employer.

 

[grapedrink]

Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the history of the world, literally, and his slaves are not making a living wage.

2017 Amazon profits: $3 billion https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2018/02/01/amazon-grows-revenue-31-2017-profit-tops-3-billion/

number of employees: 566,000 according to a quick google search

Divide all of the profits per employee and you get $5300 per employee, if they all took home an equal piece of the pie. Divide that by 2000 hours/year (40 hrs/wk * 50 weeks) and that equals a $2.65/hour raise.

Would a $2.65/hour raise help? Absolutely. But even a raise based on all profits divided equally would not make it a living raise. After taxes, you are talking an extra $300/month. Again, that's with all of the profits divided amongst the workers, and nothing for the owners/investors.

CEO bonuses and compensation relative to what the plebians make are lame, but once you do the math, the "injustice" is largely symbolic.

$3 billion?

Oh please

Before any "profit" Amazon made, Bezos personally took $162 Billion home.

A: where did I say that Bezos takes 162 billion a year, dumbfuck?

See above. I quoted the actual Amazon profits of $3 Billion for 2017, you called BS and rebutted with $162 Billion. It's all right there, yet you deny it :confused2:

I didn't use ad hominems in my posts.

dumbfuck?

Fvcktard.

You keep ignoring valid points people bring up and keep going on about your economic "expertise"

LOL

You are yet to make a single one. I showed the clear, simple math that if you somehow diverted all of the profits into the hands of all employees equally, it would exactly make a huge difference.

Again, point out the actual flaw in that :confused2: Where would the money come from to pay them more beyond that profit sharing model, without raising prices :confused2: