4 ms·

In the case of Walmart, the issue is that Walmart operates at such scale, and can afford to take short term losses, allowing them to make the "volunteer" behavi

In the case of Walmart, the issue is that Walmart operates at such scale, and can afford to take short term losses, allowing them to make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals in the community be that smaller stores go out of business, giving people few other choices as to where to shop and work other than Walmart.

kryogen1c 6y ago
> make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals why do you put this in quotes? do you think people are not responsible for their own actions when they choose where to spend their money?
- strken 6y ago
  Because it's voluntary, not volunteer - the former is unambiguously about free choice while the latter can imply working without pay.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > the latter can imply working without pay. the phrase ""volunteer" behavior" was about people shopping at Walmart, not people working there so I don't understand your point.
- tyree731 6y ago
  I meant to type "voluntary". To make a tortured analogy to illustrate a point, are the victims in the movie Saw not responsible for their own deaths, as they voluntarily chose the actions which lead to their untimely deaths? Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. When Walmart arrives and lowers prices to the point of bankrupting small business in the town, residents certainly welcome the provided conveniences and lower prices, but are faced with the choice between paying higher prices, or paying lower prices and destroying small business within their towns. Humans aren't perfect economic machines, so they're likely to pick the lower prices, paying the long-term consequences for those decisions. Hence, people don't want Walmarts moving into their towns, since the outcomes are fairly predictable at that point.
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    > To make a tortured analogy Nice. > bankrupting small business in the town I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such as these without negative consequences? > Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. But what other metric is there? You intend for the government to regulate into existence preferable or desirable for everyone? > Humans aren't perfect economic machines, Should the government force people to do what's best for them against their will?
    - tyree731 6y ago
      > I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such as these without negative consequences? No I don't believe that it is possible to avoid negative consequences with government correction. That said I don't think it's possible to avoid negative consequences with strictly market solutions to certain classes of problems, so I think each case needs to be taken on its merits. With Uber and Lyft for example, I don't really see a problem with what they're providing people, in the same way I don't see a problem with check cashing stores or most classes of short term loan companies. The problem with Lyft and Uber IMHO is with how the service they provide interacts with the systems of today, a system where healthcare and benefits are tied to full-time employment. Gig economy companies compete quite favorably on price with companies offering full-time employment, meaning the country is shifting in parts from a workforce that had healthcare and benefits to one that doesn't. I think it's worth the government looking into its laws and the countries systems and wondering if there is a better way to classify employment and to have people acquire healthcare and benefits. > But what other metric is there? You intend for the government to regulate into existence preferable or desirable for everyone? > Should the government force people to do what's best for them against their will? In the case of broad market inefficiencies I think there is a case to be made for it. Tragedies of the commons, public health issues, etc.

kryogen1c 6y ago

> make the "volunteer" behavior of individuals why do you put this in quotes? do you think people are not responsible for their own actions when they choose where to spend their money?

strken 6y ago
Because it's voluntary, not volunteer - the former is unambiguously about free choice while the latter can imply working without pay.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > the latter can imply working without pay. the phrase ""volunteer" behavior" was about people shopping at Walmart, not people working there so I don't understand your point.
tyree731 6y ago
I meant to type "voluntary". To make a tortured analogy to illustrate a point, are the victims in the movie Saw not responsible for their own deaths, as they voluntarily chose the actions which lead to their untimely deaths? Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. When Walmart arrives and lowers prices to the point of bankrupting small business in the town, residents certainly welcome the provided conveniences and lower prices, but are faced with the choice between paying higher prices, or paying lower prices and destroying small business within their towns. Humans aren't perfect economic machines, so they're likely to pick the lower prices, paying the long-term consequences for those decisions. Hence, people don't want Walmarts moving into their towns, since the outcomes are fairly predictable at that point.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  > To make a tortured analogy Nice. > bankrupting small business in the town I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such as these without negative consequences? > Voluntary choices don't imply preferrable or desirable choices. But what other metric is there? You intend for the government to regulate into existence preferable or desirable for everyone? > Humans aren't perfect economic machines, Should the government force people to do what's best for them against their will?
  - tyree731 6y ago
    > I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such as these without negative consequences? No I don't believe that it is possible to avoid negative consequences with government correction. That said I don't think it's possible to avoid negative consequences with strictly market solutions to certain classes of problems, so I think each case needs to be taken on its merits. With Uber and Lyft for example, I don't really see a problem with what they're providing people, in the same way I don't see a problem with check cashing stores or most classes of short term loan companies. The problem with Lyft and Uber IMHO is with how the service they provide interacts with the systems of today, a system where healthcare and benefits are tied to full-time employment. Gig economy companies compete quite favorably on price with companies offering full-time employment, meaning the country is shifting in parts from a workforce that had healthcare and benefits to one that doesn't. I think it's worth the government looking into its laws and the countries systems and wondering if there is a better way to classify employment and to have people acquire healthcare and benefits. > But what other metric is there? You intend for the government to regulate into existence preferable or desirable for everyone? > Should the government force people to do what's best for them against their will? In the case of broad market inefficiencies I think there is a case to be made for it. Tragedies of the commons, public health issues, etc.