> I don't get Amazon's play here.

According to the article, so far it’s only two delivery companies in one city, not an actual large trend across the country.

When negotiating with providers and vendors at scale, it’s common for some of them to give “no bid” responses or withdraw from negotiations if they don’t think the contract will be worth their time. The only way to find true market rate is to negotiate until some vendors or providers decline or withdraw, which is more or less what’s happening here.

If Amazon was unable to find other market rate delivery companies or unable to deliver the packages themselves, they’d pay more. The article has a heavy anti-Amazon angle, but this is just what market rate price discovery looks like at scale. Amazon deliveries haven’t ground to a halt in the city, so presumably they have a cheaper solution than using these two companies that would only work for higher rates.

Portland resident here, been pissed off with half of my deliveries for a birthday party this weekend getting delayed to next week then saw this article and went OH that's why. Definitely not ground to a halt, but the effects are felt and if it keeps up I'd definitely take my business elsewehre.

This is also part of the price discovery process.

These statements seem contradictory to me:

> I'd rather have a happy safe driver than a miserable one at the end of his or her rope

> Amazon’s entire value to me is fast delivery

My understanding is that the pace/quantity of deliveries is what makes the drivers miserable so if you want the drivers to be happier and not stressed then relaxing the delivery standards would have the most impact.

Do we really need most of the stuff sold on Amazon delivered in 2 days or less (or even at all)?

Ah, I see. My expectation I guess is charging let's just say 1 dollar per order. Or figuring out avg items per order and adding so many cents to each item.

With that extra dollar per order, drivers can be paid decently and at a safe pace. 10 deliveries in an hour is an extra 10 bucks per hour, for example. And of course they can hire more drivers to take the slack, since more people would be applying to this better paying, nicely paced job.

But perhaps my head is in the clouds.

The GP is saying they should hire more drivers, and reduce the workload on each one. And that the cost to doing that doesn't really bother him.

This is what most of these debates come down to: We can say we want higher paid drivers, warehouse workers, suppliers, and other laborers who work fewer hours for higher pay. But when it comes time to purchase something, the vast majority of people will choose whatever option is cheapest and fastest.

They need to provide more options for slower shipping.

So many of the items I order don't need fast shipping and I would gladly take slower shipping (and I do any time the option is available to me). Yet, a lot of the time, the slowest shipping available is next day for something that could come 2 weeks from now and it wouldn't make a difference to me.

Basically, they need to expand their no-rush shipping feature. It's a good idea, just not available that often.

Amazon competes on price through, especially as Walmart gets into the game.

> I don't get Amazon's play here.

Shareholders, probably.

Not as a matter of hard power because the outside shareholders are usually pretty docile. Management has the power.

Shareholder ideology can be used to justify all sorts of things, though.

>>Amazon's entire value to me is fast delivery. Definitely not lowest prices, and definitely not quality.

Proper back-handed compliment! I'd agree, but adding on that 'customer service' is a key part of their value offering. To me (n=1), it's their moat. I'd be gone without it.

Yes I forgot that point. Their CS is second to none.

Walmart online has a nice return system similar to AMZ - actually even better as they will send a pickup to your house for most things. But if you need a human, good luck getting anything done.

They wouldn't even have to change the prices. Amazon (overall, not necessarily on every sale) is making super-normal profit, in an industry where they dominate among few sellers and there are plenty of barriers to new companies entering and chipping away at the margin.

Thats you but I think majority of people, including me, would rather save a dollar.

There are lots of e-commerce sites though, and many of them are nicer to browse, nicer-looking, have more realistic reviews, etc. than Amazon.

Amazon absolutely competes on price. I've seen it myself. If Amazon sells something for a buck cheaper, lots and lots of people will go to Amazon for that something and maybe pick up something else from it's recommendation system they forgot they wanted, etc.

>I'd rather have a happy safe driver than a miserable one at the end of his or her rope, all so I could save a dollar.

I mean, that's just you and your ethics as a person. Capitalism demands relentless and permanent profit, so capitalist culture is middle-managers doing exactly the opposite of you. Worse, they're in a rat-race against other middle-managers to see who can save the most money. So the system is designed to make sure workers don't get decent wages, feel safe, or happy. The system can't be for relentless profit and kindess to employees, unless pressure from the outside via regulations or collective bargaining. I think the idea that good hearted people at these companies should just generous is a little naive. The good hearted most likely don't get into positions of power and even if they did, they're still playing the same oppressive game everyone else is for their own paychecks. Its greed and short-sightedness, and oppression all the way down.

Why do you say profit like it's a pejorative or a moral failure?

Ethics can drive capitalism, though, via demand. They say millennials in general tend to support businesses with a cause. And we've all seen the rise of say, cage free or free range eggs, despite how misleading the terms are.

That is to say, morals can exist even in cutthroat capitalism when consumers demand it. If only people were as pushy about human treatment as we are about animal treatment. We won't buy eggs from chickens stacked together in a box, but have no qualms about buying Iphones or clothes made by humans stacked together in a box.

> Capitalism demands relentless and permanent profit

No it doesn't. Plenty of companies go years without making profit.

Because they're failing at capitalism, usually because their competitors are better than them at it. Not because of kindness to employees or somesuch. Capitalists fighting other capitalists as ruthlessly as possible doesn't change my argument.

Also capitalisms demands are just that, demands, its not a guarantee. If company x can't compete, it will quit. If it thinks it can weather a storm because it will be able to compete in the future, it will. Its not generosity. Its just profit-seeking.

No, sometimes it just takes years to get going. That's not failing at capitalism. You just have a poor definition of the word.