5 ms·

I don't know why people still believe that boycotts and individual consumer decisions are effective strategy for such things. All the evidence is against this.

I don't know why people still believe that boycotts and individual consumer decisions are effective strategy for such things. All the evidence is against this. I suppose it's the propaganda of the "free market" and such. If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, and all product manufacturers would negotiate with all the drivers and all the consumers would negotiate etc. It would be totally inefficient and impractical, but we'd have actual competition and supply/demand etc. Reality is Amazon is a massive organization with a top-down power structure and massive power inequities. Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power. The idea that each individual consumer should make decisions that mediate the power of the massive corporation is a farce.

camus2 10y ago
> Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power. Nobody said consumers have to be individuals, consumers can organize just like low wage workers should. They have just been sold individualism thanks to centuries of propaganda. Rich people have no problem organizing, that's what corporations are, but somehow when people at the bottom of the ladder do, it is a bad thing? This is puritan morals, "rich are blessed with wealth, poor people only deserve contempt" and it certainly defines America.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Well, I think we agree completely. Citizens can organize, but powerful organizations of rich people have worked hard to keep regular citizens divided and helpless, and they spread the propaganda of "consumer choice" to try to insist that any situation can be blamed on the consumers themselves. I agree that massive organized consumer groups or institutions can make a difference.
Spooky23 10y ago
Companies like Amazon are more vulnerable than you think. The slightest disruption in flow impacts them hard. You get a large bloc of people to act, they will notice.
- dimino 10y ago
  Boycotts don't work, simply put. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak... The fact is, if you want this service, you will create stress for drivers. Why is that bad?
  - ryao 10y ago
    Avoiding business transactions with those you dislike is a basic principle. It does not need to do anything other than allow you to say "at least I do not fund them". That said, my post suggested that people would be better off if they purchased elsewhere because it is often cheaper to buy elsewhere than it is to buy off Amazon. That is an economic reality and one that naturally lends itself to people buying from Amazon's competitors. The suggestion of a boycott was the furthest thing from my mind.
    - dimino 10y ago
      If there's an economic incentive, fine, but you're just shifting your stress to other drivers. Delivering packages still happens, do you think the other companies don't follow industry standards?
      - ryao 10y ago
        Amazon is the only one promising delivery within 2 hour windows. The others do no such thing.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        dimino 10y ago
        Amazon provides a service to those who need things within a short amount of time. If you don't want to do that work, don't do it.
  - 10y ago
ryao 10y ago
Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people. Buying from other stores because they are cheaper has nothing to do with the idea of a boycott. If you dislike how they conduct their business, then you have another reason to re-evaluate your expenditures with them.
- drieddust 10y ago
  Yes but you are ignoring inertia. Amazon is so ingrained into the shopping habits of people that it will take years before it impacts Amazon in any meaningful way. I think right set of regulations is the answer. Companies should not be allowed to optimize people to such an extent.
- justicezyx 10y ago
  > Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people. I open browser, type amazon.com, search stuff, click 'buy with one-click'. I do not worry about delivery time, and I can just return without any hustle. Compare with what you suggested, let's say we choose ebay (probably the 2nd-best online retailer): I open browser, search, found item, click through, buy the item, probably need to pay shipping, but the overall price is cheaper. I might get the item in time, or not. When I want to return, I might get a smooth transaction, or not. The customer service is guaranteed to be inferior to Amazon's. In the process, I probably can save a few percentage on item price. But does it really make economic sense at all? If I buy one item on ebay, and for some reason I dont like it and could not return it; while with Amazon I am sure that I can always avoid this. Does the a few percentage saving actually save me? I don't believe that. The plain trend of Amazon eating the retail market lends little credit to your claim "Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people".
edblarney 10y ago
"If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, " No - the 'free market' is at work here. The workers absolutely do not have the power to set any terms at all. The issue is that the 'free market' is ultimatley a game over power - and when one entity has a lot, and others are divided and weak - salaries would be basically zero for them: just enough to survive. It would be much below min. wage as an entire economy of 'sub-dollar store' communities would develop. Much like favelas in Brazil etc.. For most people, we have some market power because of our skills, but for manual labour, they have none, which is why worker protections and min. wage laws exist.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Right, I agree with you. What I meant really is that the premise of "free market" the way the propagandists push it is a farce. As long as there are power imbalances, then the ideas about how free markets lead to all this efficiency etc. don't hold up, i.e. as long we we're talking about reality, free market dogma doesn't hold up. I was speculating that the source of the "each consumer should make decisions, we as consumers can hold Amazon accountable" is rooted in some naive free-market type of dogma. I'm not sure the original poster indeed came from that (whether subconsciously or not)
  - edblarney 10y ago
    Free market dogma usually does hold up. Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everything will be fair - take stuff from rich people and give it to the poor!'. Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox: It's easy to understand an authoritative, centralized system that controls everything and 'maximizes efficiency'. It's hard to understand how independent agents, working in a loosely collaborative 'free market' can actually provide much better efficiency in most scenarios. Most nations had to go through some heavy duty socialism to realize that it doesn't work very well - and it will be ongoing: teachers and professors aren't a fan, and they push socialist ideals for the 20 years or so of your education, and it all seems cozy from inside an academic setting. It's usually not until people have responsibility, i.e. children or management, or a small business (even consulting) do people start to clue in. Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' but they are not that common. Even Republicans usually expand government. Since the dawn of the USA... government has really never receded - it's only grown it's share of the economy - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation', I think. And moral and benevolent leadership. Anyhow. I write too much :)
arnoooooo 10y ago
It might not be an effective strategy, but it would be morally wrong to do otherwise.

camus2 10y ago

> Consumers are individual people with no comparable organizational power. Nobody said consumers have to be individuals, consumers can organize just like low wage workers should. They have just been sold individualism thanks to centuries of propaganda. Rich people have no problem organizing, that's what corporations are, but somehow when people at the bottom of the ladder do, it is a bad thing? This is puritan morals, "rich are blessed with wealth, poor people only deserve contempt" and it certainly defines America.

quadrangle 10y ago
Well, I think we agree completely. Citizens can organize, but powerful organizations of rich people have worked hard to keep regular citizens divided and helpless, and they spread the propaganda of "consumer choice" to try to insist that any situation can be blamed on the consumers themselves. I agree that massive organized consumer groups or institutions can make a difference.

Spooky23 10y ago

Companies like Amazon are more vulnerable than you think. The slightest disruption in flow impacts them hard. You get a large bloc of people to act, they will notice.

dimino 10y ago
Boycotts don't work, simply put. http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/do-boycotts-work-a-new-freak... The fact is, if you want this service, you will create stress for drivers. Why is that bad?
- ryao 10y ago
  Avoiding business transactions with those you dislike is a basic principle. It does not need to do anything other than allow you to say "at least I do not fund them". That said, my post suggested that people would be better off if they purchased elsewhere because it is often cheaper to buy elsewhere than it is to buy off Amazon. That is an economic reality and one that naturally lends itself to people buying from Amazon's competitors. The suggestion of a boycott was the furthest thing from my mind.
  - dimino 10y ago
    If there's an economic incentive, fine, but you're just shifting your stress to other drivers. Delivering packages still happens, do you think the other companies don't follow industry standards?
    - ryao 10y ago
      Amazon is the only one promising delivery within 2 hour windows. The others do no such thing.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - dimino 10y ago
        Amazon provides a service to those who need things within a short amount of time. If you don't want to do that work, don't do it.
- 10y ago

ryao 10y ago

Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people. Buying from other stores because they are cheaper has nothing to do with the idea of a boycott. If you dislike how they conduct their business, then you have another reason to re-evaluate your expenditures with them.

drieddust 10y ago
Yes but you are ignoring inertia. Amazon is so ingrained into the shopping habits of people that it will take years before it impacts Amazon in any meaningful way. I think right set of regulations is the answer. Companies should not be allowed to optimize people to such an extent.
justicezyx 10y ago
> Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people. I open browser, type amazon.com, search stuff, click 'buy with one-click'. I do not worry about delivery time, and I can just return without any hustle. Compare with what you suggested, let's say we choose ebay (probably the 2nd-best online retailer): I open browser, search, found item, click through, buy the item, probably need to pay shipping, but the overall price is cheaper. I might get the item in time, or not. When I want to return, I might get a smooth transaction, or not. The customer service is guaranteed to be inferior to Amazon's. In the process, I probably can save a few percentage on item price. But does it really make economic sense at all? If I buy one item on ebay, and for some reason I dont like it and could not return it; while with Amazon I am sure that I can always avoid this. Does the a few percentage saving actually save me? I don't believe that. The plain trend of Amazon eating the retail market lends little credit to your claim "Buying things from Amazon no longer makes economic sense for most people".

edblarney 10y ago

"If a market were as the simplistic theory describes, all the drivers would be completely independent, set their own terms, " No - the 'free market' is at work here. The workers absolutely do not have the power to set any terms at all. The issue is that the 'free market' is ultimatley a game over power - and when one entity has a lot, and others are divided and weak - salaries would be basically zero for them: just enough to survive. It would be much below min. wage as an entire economy of 'sub-dollar store' communities would develop. Much like favelas in Brazil etc.. For most people, we have some market power because of our skills, but for manual labour, they have none, which is why worker protections and min. wage laws exist.

quadrangle 10y ago
Right, I agree with you. What I meant really is that the premise of "free market" the way the propagandists push it is a farce. As long as there are power imbalances, then the ideas about how free markets lead to all this efficiency etc. don't hold up, i.e. as long we we're talking about reality, free market dogma doesn't hold up. I was speculating that the source of the "each consumer should make decisions, we as consumers can hold Amazon accountable" is rooted in some naive free-market type of dogma. I'm not sure the original poster indeed came from that (whether subconsciously or not)
- edblarney 10y ago
  Free market dogma usually does hold up. Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everything will be fair - take stuff from rich people and give it to the poor!'. Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox: It's easy to understand an authoritative, centralized system that controls everything and 'maximizes efficiency'. It's hard to understand how independent agents, working in a loosely collaborative 'free market' can actually provide much better efficiency in most scenarios. Most nations had to go through some heavy duty socialism to realize that it doesn't work very well - and it will be ongoing: teachers and professors aren't a fan, and they push socialist ideals for the 20 years or so of your education, and it all seems cozy from inside an academic setting. It's usually not until people have responsibility, i.e. children or management, or a small business (even consulting) do people start to clue in. Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' but they are not that common. Even Republicans usually expand government. Since the dawn of the USA... government has really never receded - it's only grown it's share of the economy - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation', I think. And moral and benevolent leadership. Anyhow. I write too much :)

arnoooooo 10y ago

It might not be an effective strategy, but it would be morally wrong to do otherwise.