Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 05 2022, @08:14PM   Printer-friendly

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[Ed's Comment: AC Friendly withdrawn.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.

Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 07 2022, @06:32PM (2 children)

    Different AC here... and yes, you are correct. Free speech is important but free speech has consequences. And anonymous free speech tend to not have it.

    [N.B.: I'm *not* posting AC here because I want to stand behind what I write, not just here but in the previous comments as well -- cf. here [], here [] and here [] ]

    This! definitely. Randall Munroe put it pretty succinctly [].

    If you review my posting history, I consistently defended free speech as it's critically important to constructive discussion --- especially if you disagree.

    My experience with HackerNews (HN) was eye-opening. As a general rule, free speech is encouraged -- within the scope of posting in "good faith." Disagreement isn't discouraged, but those who are dismissive, nasty or negative (without explaining themselves) are severely downvoted. And nasty/bad faith comments are noted (and admonished in the thread) by the site admins. Those who repeatedly ignore such admonishments are *banned*.

    I think we (I know I did) could learn from that -- think about what you're posting. Is it honest and in "good faith"? Are you making a point that will *add* to the conversation? If not, why are you making that comment?

    I think HN's rules, especially around banning folks, are a little draconian. And many folks there are really hypersensitive (complaining about inoffensive word choices because someone "might" misunderstand -- essentially asssuming that everyone else is a moron, so they need to be protected from their own poor reading comprehension) and downvote/belittle folks for using words that could be considered insensitive if used in certain contexts, even when they're not being used in such a context. It can be quite tiresome.

    That said, having spent time there has made me more cognizant of what I write and how (even minor swipes at others) can be interpreted and contribute to the quality of discussion.

    So these days I'm much more likely to *think* before I post. With the primary thought being, "what does this comment add to the discussion?"

    That's not to say I don't call people out for bad faith, dishonesty or ignoring factual information (and as long as I'm operating in good faith, honestly and providing facts to back up my argument, I'm generally received positively).

    But HN is too narrowly focused, tends toward groupthink and a lack of diverse opinions.

    So here I am again. Back on SoylentNews. Which is suffering because the SN staff (from NCommander on down, at least in my experience) want to make this a place where folks can be free to express themselves without being censored or banned.

    And that's *much* better than many places on the 'net. The downside is nastiness, negativity and trolls/spam posts.

    To survive and be successful, SN users (AC *and* registered) need to step up and not only address the bad faith of others, but examine their own motivations when posting. Does a comment add to the discussion? Is it offered in good faith?

    Please understand that I'm not advocating for the heavy-handed HN style ban hammers. That's way too restrictive.

    Here's an excerpt from the HN posting guidelines [] which seem relevant and reasonable. I don't advocate for making these "the rules" and punishing people who don't follow them, but they're a good idea and I'd hope that decent folks will give them some thought:

    Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

    Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

    When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

    Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

    Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

    There are plenty of other things in the linked guidelines which I think are overly restrictive, but the above seem like common sense and simple respect for other humans.

    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @06:41PM (1 child)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 07 2022, @06:41PM (#1258738) Journal

    Thanks again - I think you just about nailed it.

    And while I agree, I think most of us find it hard to do everything you suggest from time to time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that we should be prepared to occasionally fail.

    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 07 2022, @07:07PM

      And while I agree, I think most of us find it hard to do everything you suggest from time to time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that we should be prepared to occasionally fail.

      Absolutely. Having been (with the exception of the past 17 months or so) a relatively active SN user (and, for a time, editor) since not quite the beginning (but close), I know that most users are reasonably decent human beings.

      I'd hope that discussions like these become more frequent and help other folks (including myself) to keep in mind that those they're interacting with are actual humans and deserve simple human respect.

      Will we fail sometimes? Absolutely. I failed so badly that I felt the need to withdraw in shame for my bad faith posting.

      Maybe there should be a monthly (quarterly?) Meta article about the state of discourse here, where everyone (ACs included) can discuss the kind of discourse that we see and how to make the discussions better and more productive?

      Not to (necessarily) bash others, but to talk about the kinds of things that promote quality discussions and those that don't.

      Because as I said, the solution must come from the users, or the ideal of free expression without interference from the admins will be lost. And that would make me very sad.

      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr