Amazon vs Hachette

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Squeezing five extra bucks out of Hachette may be a very costly extra profit if regulators start seeing Amazon as a company that abuses a dominant market position or suppliers start to see doing business with Amazon as bad business.

If suppliers see Amazon as bad business, that is between the two of them, so... why do we care???

Amazon is not abusing their dominant market position, unless you can provide better proof than "Amazon is playing hardball with their suppliers, umm... just like every other business ever to exist... just like Hachette".

Currently, they are merely using their dominant market position. Like all good businesses do. Like Hachette did to get where they are now.

[DiapDealer]

Like all good businesses do. Like Hachette did to get where they are now.

Like Barnes & Noble (and Borders) did to initiate the slaughter of the independent bookstore in the first place (but who are now apparently on the side of the angels simply by virtue of sucking at being the biggest bully on the block).

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

If suppliers see Amazon as bad business, that is between the two of them, so... why do we care???

Amazon is not abusing their dominant market position, unless you can provide better proof than "Amazon is playing hardball with their suppliers, umm... just like every other business ever to exist... just like Hachette".

Currently, they are merely using their dominant market position. Like all good businesses do. Like Hachette did to get where they are now.

That's not for us to decide. It may not even matter that much once a company gets into the cross-hairs of anti-trust authorities.
Even if US authorities share your view, it doesn't mean that European authorities will do the same. A company that pays almost no taxes and mainly creates badly paid jobs with frequent labour disputes has few friends.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That's not for us to decide. It may not even matter that much once a company gets into the cross-hairs of anti-trust authorities.
Even if US authorities share your view, it doesn't mean that European authorities will do the same. A company that pays almost no taxes and mainly creates badly paid jobs with frequent labour disputes has few friends.

But they haven't and they aren't, and they are merely following the loopholes laid down by governments and exploited by every company out there.

Get this: AMAZON IS NOTHING SPECIAL!! They are merely one among many companies doing the exact same thing! And what they are doing is totally legal anyway!

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But they haven't and they aren't, and they are merely following the loopholes laid down by governments and exploited by every company out there.

Get this: AMAZON IS NOTHING SPECIAL!! They are merely one among many companies doing the exact same thing! And what they are doing is totally legal anyway!

Exactly. If anyone has a problem with the taxes they are paying or not paying, the problem is in the laws. Loopholes exist to be used.

[hoichi]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

That's not for us to decide. It may not even matter that much once a company gets into the cross-hairs of anti-trust authorities.
Even if US authorities share your view, it doesn't mean that European authorities will do the same. A company that pays almost no taxes and mainly creates badly paid jobs with frequent labour disputes has few friends.

Even if the anti-trust authorities make their move on Amazon, I don't see how that proves your point, whatever it might be (besides your apparent general dislike of Amazon). Sure those institutions are supposed to right the wrongs but they're just human institutions. They can err and they can act for all sorts of wrong reasons, and I think the quality of jobs someone creates is the last thing on their mind.

[CommonReader]

Tax loopholes for large corporations cannot be closed easily by single governments.
The "everyone is doing it" argument is rather lazy and it ignores that negative public perception of a company can hurt a business quite seriously.
Walmart tanked in Germany not least because it was seen as a bad employer and Starbucks has been hurt after being called out for its aggressive tax avoidance in the UK.
Book buyers may even be more sensitive with regard to such issues than customers of a discount store like Walmart.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Tax loopholes for large corporations cannot be closed easily by single governments.
The "everyone is doing it" argument is rather lazy and it ignores that negative public perception of a company can hurt a business quite seriously.

But it does imply that if you have a problem, you should be taking it up with the government. And stop pretending their perception is anything more than a social issue.

Walmart tanked in Germany not least because it was seen as a bad employer and Starbucks has been hurt after being called out for its aggressive tax avoidance in the UK.
Book buyers may even be more sensitive with regard to such issues than customers of a discount store like Walmart.

Maybe, maybe not. But you just jumped to a random conclusion, so I will have to ignore it anyway. Again, this is a social issue, since legally they are doing nothing wrong. (Until and unless new laws are enacted, at which point I have a feeling Amazon will make sure to be compliant. Bezos isn't stupid. )

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Again, this is a social issue, since legally they are doing nothing wrong. (Until and unless new laws are enacted, at which point I have a feeling Amazon will make sure to be compliant. Bezos isn't stupid. )

Your claim that legally that are doing nothing wrong is nothing more than that, a claim, as their current activities have not been investigated and cleared. Other company CEOs weren't stupid either, yet they fell foul of the law when they got to big for their boots and thought that they could bend the market completely to their will.
Again, perception by the public is very much economic issue for a company that sells directly to the public.

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

A company that pays almost no taxes and mainly creates badly paid jobs with frequent labour disputes has few friends.

The city of Seattle, Amazon's home, has no such complaints about Amazon. In fact, Amazon reportedly asked Seattle for none of the traditional tax breaks that corporations routinely get from cities as a condition of locating there. Amazon has completely transformed a formerly 'undesirable' warehouse area near downtown, even paying for amenities normally the responsibility of the city, and is now moving into downtown. Two of Seattle's other homegrown companies, Boeing and Microsoft, built their campuses in suburban areas.

In fact, the company’s modification of the city doesn’t even stop at its buildings. In South Lake Union and beyond, Amazon is creating the very urban amenities that local governments normally take care of. For the privilege of developing three alleyways, which are technically city property, Amazon is paying $10 million, according to Diane Sugimura, director of Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development. But as part of the deal, Amazon is also required to build wider sidewalks, construct two blocks of separated bike lanes (which will ultimately become part of the neighborhood’s larger cycling network), contribute public art to the area, add a streetcar to the existing system and carve out a dog run. Many of these projects Amazon will not only fund, but also design and build.

Link to above quote: Amazon Straight-Up Developing Whole Seattle Neighborhoods Now

It is interesting that Amazon has gone to great lengths to pay no more taxes than legally required pretty much everywhere, but is a model citizen at home.

As far as "mainly creates badly paid jobs", Payscale.com claims Amazon typically pays its employees 12% above market rate. Here are the hourly rate figures: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/...nc/Hourly_Rate

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by BelleZora

The city of Seattle, Amazon's home, has no such complaints about Amazon. In fact, Amazon reportedly asked Seattle for none of the traditional tax breaks that corporations routinely get from cities as a condition of locating there.

That's not true in my area. And as for your observation on pay, then why don't I ever see Amazon up there with the other tech companies on long lists of best places to work?

However, you would be correct to point out that many other companies want corporate welfare for all their locations, whereas Amazon exempts its home town. So plus there for Amazon.

Also a plus is that Amazon money, directly or through the Bezos family, goes to Seattle's first rate Fred Hutchinson Center Center, and to the promising Hutchinson-related biotech startup, Juno Theraputics, that may one day make life better for almost everyone. And according to The Everything Store, Amazon's CEO is a good father and husband.

But I don't see this thread as a matter of adding up pluses and minuses to see who is heaven-bound. It's about what's good for literature (defined broadly enough to include serious non-fiction). As least, that's how I'm playing it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But I don't see this thread as a matter of adding up pluses and minuses to see who is heaven-bound. It's about what's good for literature (defined broadly enough to include serious non-fiction). As least, that's how I'm playing it.

Funny. I'm thinking it's about contract negotiations between a retailer and one of its suppliers of product.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Funny. I'm thinking it's about contract negotiations between a retailer and one of its suppliers of product.

You mean, besides for the fact that Hachette isn't necessarily so "good for literature" either.

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But I don't see this thread as a matter of adding up pluses and minuses to see who is heaven-bound. It's about what's good for literature (defined broadly enough to include serious non-fiction). As least, that's how I'm playing it.

You are absolutely correct, of course. Mention Amazon and many of us have a instant emotional reaction, whether positive or negative, and suddenly the topic and even objectivity are forgotten. My bias is positive since Seattle is my city, having lived there decades, and I share the local appreciation for Amazon. I have other personal reasons for appreciating Jeff Bezos. I should stay away from all threads featuring Amazon.

Now...back to the nasty world of contract negotiations.

[pwalker8]

The unfortunate thing is that people let their like or dislike of a company color how they think the guys with the guns should treat that company. If you dislike Apple, then the government should bash Apple at every opportunity and who cares if they have to bend some laws to do it. You don't like Amazon because your favorite independent book seller went out of business, then the government should bash Amazon and who cares if they have to bend the rules a bit.

The problem with that approach is a government that bends the rules to go after a company you dislike is just as likely to do the same to go after a company you like, and when that happens, your moral outrage is dismissed as the hypocrisy that it is. We are all a lot better off if the government stayed out of such disputes. If I don't like Amazon, then I don't have to buy from them. If I don't like Apple, then I don't have to buy from them. If I don't like Google, then there are other search engines out there.

If Amazon and Hachette are in a contract dispute, then there are other online bookstores that carry Hachette. I just let Amazon know that their strong arm tactics have inconvenienced me and that I'm taking my business else where. If enough people do that, then Amazon will cave. It's not all that different than the various contract disputes that gets channels pulled from cable TV providers for a while.