SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon Cancels Or Delays Plans For At Least 16 Warehouses This Year:
After spending billions doubling the size of its fulfillment network during the pandemic, Amazon finds itself in a perilous position.
In the first quarter of 2022, the e-commerce giant reported a $3.8 billion net loss after raking in an $8.1 billion profit in Q1 2021. That includes $6 billion in added costs — the bulk of which can be traced back to that same fulfillment network.
Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) CFO Brian Olsavsky said the company chose to expand its warehouse network based on "the high end of a very volatile demand outlook." So far this year, though, it has shut down or delayed plans for at least 16 scheduled facilities.
"We currently have some excess capacity in the network that we need to grow into," Olsavsky told investors on Amazon's Q1 2022 earnings call. "So, we've brought down our build expectations. Note again that many of the build decisions were made 18 to 24 months ago, so there are limitations on what we can adjust midyear."
[...] If you're wondering how that's possible, consider Amazon's unmatched turnover rate. A New York Times investigation uncovered that even before the pandemic, it was as high as 150%. That means there are more employees leaving Amazon warehouses each year than there are being hired.
[Ed's Comment: AC Friendly withdrawn. You can blame you-know-who for the spamming]
In fact, there has been so much turnover that Amazon began tracking it weekly and found it loses an estimated 3% of its warehouse workers every seven days. That means the e-commerce powerhouse sifts through its entire supply of warehouse labor every eight months on average.
Simply put, the strategy isn't sustainable long term. Still, Wulfraat believes Amazon can weather the storm.
"It will take some time to iron out the wrinkles, but they will get through it," he told Supply Chain Dive.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:35AM (4 children)
As much as I may disagree with what aristarchus wrote (just as I strongly disagree with what Runaway1956 writes) neither have ever been prevented by the staff from expressing their views. All of aristarchus' posts can be viewed by anyone who wants to go looking for them. He was not banned because of his political views.
He was banned for doxxing another member of our community. It is as simple as that. And had he not done so he could still have a full account on this site.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @09:12AM (3 children)
Not true at all. The mod-bombing of aristarchus, with the encouragement of staff, took place well before the false accusations of doxxing were made. Let's tell the truth, janrinok, we are men of action, lies do not become us. And, by any chance, do you have six fingers on your left hand?
(Score: 4, Touché) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @11:58AM (2 children)
We first found doxxing material in early 2000. It was inserted into submissions made by aristarchus, usually in his comments but sometimes in apparently 'quoted' text. However, it was not obvious to us what it was. It was only much later when we started looking back at earlier posts that we could recognise the material for what it actually was. It might have been present before that time but we had sufficient evidence of the abuse at that point so the search was discontinued.
In most cases we edited it out of the submissions or more usually they were rejected. It made no sense in the context of the submission and was not part of the source material. I don't think it ever reached the front page stories but DID appear in some of aristarchus' journals, and of course in numerous comments. The sock-puppet mod bombing did not begin until mid-2001, some 14 months after the doxxing material was first seen, and the Decision to ban aristarchus was published in https://soylentnews.org/meta/article.pl?sid=22/02/02/2038240 [soylentnews.org] - late February 2022.
So rather than making false accusations about other people lying, why don't you just look back through your old submissions and realise that you left a trail for others to follow. And your attempts to disrupt this site can be traced much further back than that. Back to the time when you actually gave us some PII that is in the database. Now THAT is probably why you want the site to fail - because that evidence is, in all likelihood, still there should somebody want to look.
And here you are today, disrupting yet another thread with your false claims. Despite the actions we have taken recently you have not learned anything and you show no signs of remorse. You are leading us to an inevitable decision.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2022, @01:07AM
Yes, this nasty person was mod bombing, with the use of sockpuppets, before, mind you, before 911! What more evidence do we need to prove that he is a terranist? Not that any evidence has been presented at all, only asserted, by Boomers whose grasp of reality and history seem to be slipping.
P.S. When you limit ACs to the ghettos, you encourage certain behaviors.
P.P.S. There was no SN in 2000, or in 2001. The rest of your information is probably just as reliable.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 08 2022, @04:08AM
Obvious typo - sorry 2000 should read 2020.