Amazon Warehouse Destroys Over 130,000 Items Per Week

[abrasivesaint]

 

https://nypost.com/2021/06/22/amazon-warehouse-destroys-130k-unsold-items-per-week-report/

[abrasivesaint]

That story is out of the UK, but i think it’s safe to say this sort of shit is probably happening everywhere. 
 

 

[mr.yuck]

Interesting. How does any of this work? The fulfillment centers are full of private vendors goods? Who compensated the vendors for their trashed goods?

[Mercer]

For the sake of discussion let's say they're actually being wasteful to keep prices up on the stuff they do sell, and this isn't a matter of items expiring or something. That would create an advantage for competition, who can easily operate more efficiently by not destroying surplus inventory, and selling it at a discount. In short, for every action there's an equal, and opposite reaction. This reaction is increased competition incentive on the market, that if exploited properly is a force that ultimately drives price down.

[Dark_Knight]

Mercer you’re the man but your capitalist povs are just as extreme as dhabs political right ones. Where is he anyways? @Dirty_habiT

[mr.yuck]

47 minutes ago, Dark_Knight said:

Mercer you’re the man but your capitalist povs are just as extreme as dhabs political right ones. Where is he anyways? @Dirty_habiT

you gotta look into a mirror and yell  YEeeHAwwww 3 times to make him reappear.

Edited June 25, 2021 by mr.yuck

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, Dark_Knight said:

Mercer you’re the man but your capitalist povs are just as extreme as dhabs political right ones. Where is he anyways? @Dirty_habiT

 

Wondering what your opposing, "non extremist" pov is, or what about mines sounds extremist to you?

[abrasivesaint]

13 hours ago, Mercer said:

For the sake of discussion let's say they're actually being wasteful to keep prices up on the stuff they do sell, and this isn't a matter of items expiring or something. 

I heard somewhere else that at least some of the times were definitely on the surplus side and not the expiration side. 

 

13 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

That would create an advantage for competition, who can easily operate more efficiently by not destroying surplus inventory, and selling it at a discount. In short, for every action there's an equal, and opposite reaction. This reaction is increased competition incentive on the market, that if exploited properly is a force that ultimately drives price down.

Does it though? There’s more to Amazon than cheap prices, and i think those are many reasons why Amazon is as popular as it is. Speedy delivery combined with convenience of 1 click buying and not having to get off their asses is what i imagine attracts most people to the service.

[mr.yuck]

@MercerI don’t think the capitalistic view point is incorrect from an economic standpoint, but something still feels way out of wack. 
 

Over production

Waste of raw materials

Labor inefficiencies for all involved that built or moved the product around 

Distribution inefficiencies

Warehousing inefficiency 

Edited June 25, 2021 by mr.yuck

[Mercer]

Nobody is bothering to construct a counter perspective, or dissect exactly what's wrong with mine. I agree it would be better for everyone if they donated them, or discounted them, but sometimes that isn't an option.

 

Items expire, get damaged, get recalled and aren't worth shipping back, some vendors don't want unused inventory being dumped on the open market and require it's destroyed. Really, whatever the cause it's not any of my business, since it's not my inventory.

 

I don't give a single unit of emotion about what doesn't belong to, or even effect me. I just wanted to share some cold blood logic, and perspective in here. Hate to see people get distracted by how confusing it is, seeing what the next man is doing, and thinking it somehow concerns them. If your mind isn't on your business, nobody with your best interests at heart has their mind focused on yours, if you know what I mean.

 

We should all vow to become so rich that we have to destroy our own shit to get even richer. If any of us ever make it, I hope what we're doing confuses the fuck out of, and slightly angers the poors. 

[abrasivesaint]

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

I agree it would be better for everyone if they donated them, or discounted them, but sometimes that isn't an option.

How would it not be an option? If you contacted an organization with the prospect of a massive donation, i’m quite sure they would gladly come pick all the shit up and take it off your hands for you. That’s why these organizations have box trucks, for this type of shit. It’s why the “free” section of Craigslist exists, haha.
 

It also costs to have trash removed and disposed of, does it not? How does someone else spending their time and money to come take goods off of your hands, for free, that you’re going to discard anyway, not benefit you in the exact same manner or actually be even more beneficial to you, saving you costs of trash removal? 
 

The people benefiting from discounted or donated goods probably can’t afford your products anyway, otherwise it would reason that you wouldn’t have the surplus. If the demand isn’t there, it would drive prices down due to an abundance and lack of demand. If the price is down due to lack of demand, wouldn’t it be possible that demand then potentially rises because consumers who otherwise wouldn’t spend the money on an item, may now spend the money because the item is more affordable to them, thus relieving you of the surplus anyway?

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

I don't give a single unit of emotion about what doesn't belong to, or even effect me. I just wanted to share some cold blood logic, and perspective in here. Hate to see people get distracted by how confusing it is, seeing what the next man is doing, and thinking it somehow concerns them.

It does concern us, as it is an incredibly wasteful use of resources and goods. What sort of resources were wasted in the creation and destruction of these products? How much of this shit is going to just going to sit in a landfill?. 

 

2 hours ago, Mercer said:

We should all vow to become so rich that we have to destroy our own shit to get even richer. If any of us ever make it, I hope what we're doing confuses the fuck out of, and slightly angers the poors. 

Absolutely disagree. I want my community to prosper. I want the country and the world to reap the benefits of prosperity. If we’re not striving for a better world and we’re just aiming for jaded Scrooge McDuck Capitalists to be able to swim in their coins, then i vote we just let the nukes fly and get this shit show over with and rid the galaxy of this parasitic life form. 

 

 

[Mercer]

13 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

How would it not be an option?

 

Because they're a for profit business, and it would cost them more money (profit) to do something other than destroying the inventory, obviously, or they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[misteraven]

Often times there’s also legal implications to consider. Example, most states have legislation regarding food donation. If a supermarket donates food to a shelter and dudes get sick, supermarket gets sued. Easier for them to skip the liability and extra expense of coordinating donation, so it gets dumped. 
 

I’ll bet regarding Amazon it’s likely that the seller doesn’t want to eat the cost of return shipping on broken items or on items that have bulk or weight, but little value or margin. It’s not Amazon’s to give away and meanwhile individual sellers might not trust Amazon to “give it away” or possibly not even really understand the concept of donation (think of an offshore Chinese seller). So there’s product in limbo that can’t be returned and is taking up space. Seller won’t spend money on a return, but will right it off after proof of destruction. 

[fat ralphy]

My big issue is the environmental impact with this - fucked up.

 

Was listening to an interesting podcast the other day that was explaining how Amazon basically studies products that do well and then duplicate and fuck off their own customers (sellers) - of course they deny this but I think it has started to make its way into the legal system. 

 

I sit here and complain yet I also use Amazon frequently - I need to work on that. 

[Mercer]

Coolest shit, my mom ordered a tool cabinet for me from Amazon as a surprise gift. It arrived dented, so she requested a return, seller said fuck it and just refunded my mom. Now I've got a cool tool cabinet/chest for free because of this same sort of "wastefulness" where it costs more money to pay return shipping $70 than just give it away for free.

 

[Elena Delle Donne]

5 hours ago, misteraven said:

Often times there’s also legal implications to consider. Example, most states have legislation regarding food donation. If a supermarket donates food to a shelter and dudes get sick, supermarket gets sued. Easier for them to skip the liability and extra expense of coordinating donation, so it gets dumped. 
 

I’ll bet regarding Amazon it’s likely that the seller doesn’t want to eat the cost of return shipping on broken items or on items that have bulk or weight, but little value or margin. It’s not Amazon’s to give away and meanwhile individual sellers might not trust Amazon to “give it away” or possibly not even really understand the concept of donation (think of an offshore Chinese seller). So there’s product in limbo that can’t be returned and is taking up space. Seller won’t spend money on a return, but will right it off after proof of destruction. 

 

this is my bet. in general up to 40% of online purchases are returned (vs 5-10% for in-store purchases) and the time spent handling returns at a warehouse is undoubtedly less profitable than time spent packing and shipping new purchases. that's really all it has to come down to. this is a company that manages their employees by the minute to wring out productivity; the cheapest and most efficient solution, which is crushing and incinerating perfectly good things in this case, is what they'll choose. 

 

amazon is really one of the world's worst companies but they're certainly not the only ecommerce company to do this; anyone who accepts returns does this. your returns almost always get sent to the incinerator, an estimated 5 billion pounds of waste (!!) in the US alone. 

[Elena Delle Donne]

3 hours ago, fat ralphy said:

Was listening to an interesting podcast the other day that was explaining how Amazon basically studies products that do well and then duplicate and fuck off their own customers (sellers) - of course they deny this but I think it has started to make its way into the legal system.  

 

the amazon basics line is often just someone else's IP. oops! 

[Elena Delle Donne]

i'm against the pure capitalist way of life here solely because this is so egregiously wasteful and we're boiling the planet to death. i realize there is no "better" or "stronger" argument than that 

[abrasivesaint]

12 hours ago, Mercer said:

 

Because they're a for profit business, and it would cost them more money (profit) to do something other than destroying the inventory, obviously, or they wouldn't be doing it.

 

I get that. It did make me realize that my argument is based more off an idea that rigid Capitalism isn’t the end all be all solution and maybe other options should be explored. So i guess we’re talking about related but different things. 

[metronome]

7 hours ago, Elena Delle Donne said:

i'm against the pure capitalist way of life here solely because this is so egregiously wasteful and we're boiling the planet to death. i realize there is no "better" or "stronger" argument than that 

 

Capitalism can be done ethically I would like to think.  The billionaire class just reminds me of a modern day monarchy/autocrat, refusing to let go of any wealth for redistribution because they fear it will wither their hold on power.  We are slowly eroding the middle classes and reverting back to shitty extractive policies.  Modern day serfdom. 

 

And when I say redistribution I don't mean exactly social programs (though I am in favour of those largely) - I mean wages being held low, jobs being offshored, unsustainable growth at the expense of quality of life, etc 

Edited June 26, 2021 by metronome

[Elena Delle Donne]

the consumption cycle is to blame too here—broadly speaking we are buying more stuff, more often, and using it fewer times before replacing it. consumers and corporations are to blame here. the average piece of clothing is worn maybe seven times now before it gets tossed, apparently? this wall street journal article is thorough and very bleak, a recommended read. 

 

obviously you can argue well we have the freedom to do that, because the market can sustain $5 shorts made in sweatshops with cotton picked by uyghur slave labor, and that's true, these are affordable. i would only argue that the human and resource cost of it all is terrible, and not something worth defending

 

the "is there ethical consumption under capitalism?" is a good question. i think you can trade wages for goods in a fair way, maybe even on an industrial scale, but the cheaper the goods are to make, the less likely that becomes. 

 

as i've gotten older i am very deliberate about what i buy and own and use, and buy used or secondhand when i can. 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Elena Delle Donne

[Mercer]

3 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I get that. It did make me realize that my argument is based more off an idea that rigid Capitalism isn’t the end all be all solution and maybe other options should be explored. So i guess we’re talking about related but different things. 

 

 

100% capitalism is the only system that can function on a large, global scale. Socialism is at best only effective on much smaller scales of communities.

 

IMO the only major flaw to capitalisms heavy economic output is the impact that has on the environment. Se we probably both agree there's a big problem there. Unfortunately, pollution seems to be much worse (per unit of economic output) under Socialism. Seeking to impair economic output (as many socialists believe) has a limited effect on pollution, as any system still needs some level of economic output to meet basic needs.

 

The approach of hampering commerce isn't fixing the actual problem. Lowering economic output works like a bad pharmaceutical, at best treats a symptom and can get some numbers down, but we all know the devastating side effects this drug causes. Billions of people worldwide need life quality. Socialism, and all forms of pocket watching in general always brings with them demonstrable unintended consequences. Basically the reduction in quality of life as seen in any Socialist "paradise" that's ever existed.

 

If you want a solution to pollution, simply attack the cause of the disease and don't allow people to pollute. It's that simple. Who cares how many products are destroyed in a warehouse serving millions? As long as they're being manufactured, shipped, and disposed of properly. You'd have to perform some gold medal level mental gymnastics to explain how it is any of your concern as long as they're doing it right. A clickbait headline that would peak my interest, AKA be of my concern would be "Amazon illegally dumping thousands of products into the ocean" or something along those lines.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Mercer

[Mercer]

I know I seem like an Amazon fanboy, but even I am trying to limit my consumption on there mostly because of the additional unnecessary packaging. Wondering if they'll ever stop boxing stuff that already comes in boxes, now that they do their own deliveries. For now, I'm still price checking everything, and if it can wait and there's enough of a savings I going to cop from Bezos. I've got Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Lowes, and Costco bookmarked on the phone for search and the Amazon App installed. Ordered a 10 pack of Makita batteries from Wal-Mart a while back for $200 less than on Amazon's price, the order was fulfilled by an independent vendor.

[Elena Delle Donne]

33 minutes ago, Mercer said:

100% capitalism is the only system that can function on a large, global scale.

 

The approach of hampering commerce isn't fixing the actual problem. 

 

i am attracted to "from each according to ability, to each according to need" but it's utopian; don't see us achieving it without something like a far more invasive and ruthless surveillance state than the one we have now, which is also something i'm not into. 

 

but if you believe this type of consumption is undesirable, hampering commerce might be all we have left. the standard of living we've set in the west is wildly unsustainable and the rest of the world is chasing it. people like buying new stuff all the time and getting it delivered to them; they are addicted to cheap stuff with questionable sourcing. 

 

if capitalism is the only system that works at scale, it's in large part because of a set of near-universal human needs and motivations. these are the same that drive consumption at large.  

[Elena Delle Donne]

my brand of ecofacism would start with beef and flying, but i'll hear arguments elsewhere, in a thread on that topic 

[Mercer]

@Elena Delle DonneTo me there is no such thing as a utopia. I'm saying our approach is misplaced. You can talk about reducing consumption all day, but if you aren't reducing consumption yourself, and you're focused on forcing making someone else sacrifice, you're missing point. Pointing your finger at someone, or something that consumes more while your hands are also dirty does the opposite of actually helping. Everyone else could just as easily point their finger at you, all of it unproductive at best, and harmful at worst.

 

Your chances of living comfortable, high quality life of responsible consumption increase with the favorability of your own economic situation, which in turn depends on the health of the overall economic systems you have access to. In short, misguided attempts at reducing economic activity provide no path forward, and is counterproductive to the environmental, and economic needs of everyone else floating through time on this speck of dust in the universe.

 

It's like seeing someone litter a mask, and then saying "well let's ban masks because people litter them". Why not focus on the littering itself as a problem. Instead, we're all focused on the concept of the masks, which is at best adjacent to the littering problem, but not the root of it. The only thing you're really changing is people's ability to access masks, not the littering.

Edited June 26, 2021 by Mercer

[Dark_Knight]

My trash takes over two weeks to fill so suck it you wasteful whoremongers!

 

[mr.yuck]

2 hours ago, Elena Delle Donne said:

my brand of ecofacism would start with beef and flying, but i'll hear arguments elsewhere, in a thread on that topic 

my ecofacism includes dismantling all cruise ships and repurposing all of the raw materials within them.

[metronome]

4 hours ago, Dark_Knight said:

My trash takes over two weeks to fill so suck it you wasteful whoremongers!

 

 

Same, we are a family of 4 and we have the middle option trashcan size.  We compost a ton.  Pricing incentives work imo. 

[fat ralphy]

Anyone else in the thread down to see how long we can hold out without buying anything on Amazon…

 

How frequently are you dudes using the shit - if I am honest I bet I cop something once a week sometimes more.