4 ms·

I am increasingly skeptical that "voting with your pocketbook" is anything more than an expression of one's moral values (though there is certainly value in tha

by badRNG 6y ago

I am increasingly skeptical that "voting with your pocketbook" is anything more than an expression of one's moral values (though there is certainly value in that.) Choosing not to do business with the Carnegie Steel of online shopping just isn't going to change Amazon's market position. There will never be enough people boycotting Amazon due to its inhuman treatment of its workers to offset the value Amazon receives from doing so. The only solution that I think has a chance of working is public policy, which seems increasingly less likely as political parties are ever further beholden to the interests of their corporate benefactors. It's a bleak outlook, but as the allusion to Carnegie Steel suggests, it isn't the first time the US has found itself in this position. In fact, the parallels between the political economy of the early 20th century and today seem increasingly more aligned.

bovermyer 6y ago
I don't disagree with you. However, choosing to go elsewhere isn't meant to sink Amazon - it's meant to support alternatives, to encourage others to support alternatives or at least think about the situation, and yes, to make me feel better about my choices.
- NoOneNew 6y ago
  Yup. Also, while supporting the "competition", you allow them to play the long game to find and fund ways of taking ground from Amazon when there are missteps. But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."
  - badRNG 6y ago
    >But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings." I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a political problem, not a consumer problem. Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism."
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      That phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption". To pretend capitalism is the sudden problem to the world is a feat of self delusion and dodging having any form of self-accountability. Because the world was a perfect place prior to modern capitalism? I'm not saying it's perfect, but seriously, quit pretending like it's the cause of the world's problems. The cause of all our problems is the fact we are human. That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person, you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you believe in your own ethics.
      - badRNG 6y ago
        >the phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically neutral. After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't unethical. There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs. Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  One problem is the obvious alternative other than target, Walmart, is far worse than Amazon on almost every measure. The heirs of Sam Walton and who have billions in walmart stock today support creationism, various republican causes and they really really hate unions, much more than Amazon. Being from the south I've seen many small towns decimated by a large Walmart being built on the side of town and then killing the small businesses in the center - this happened to my grandfather's town. He understood what was happening, he was also a walmart stock holder. I'm under no illusions that Amazon has done some of the same effect on local retail. Yet amazon doesn't support creation science.
wjsetzer 6y ago
I agree that voting with your wallet doesn't affect large companies. However, for me, not using Amazon is about ethics and choosing less evil companies. Honestly, and I think others would agree, Amazon has had a declining user experience for years now (product names are nonsense SEO soup and the brands are fake/knock off brands) and not using Amazon can be as much practical as ethical. I'd certainly like to hit Amazon with trust busting regulations, but I have to settle with being "personally responsible" in the meantime.
adamsea 6y ago
I used to agree but now feel differently. Public culture and it’s impact via media are greater than they were back in the day I think. And I think the social value of these gestures - making boycotting companies behaving like amazon normal, and eventually even cool / expected, is a major factor in social change and in precipitating legislation. But it does take decades.

by badRNG 6y ago

bovermyer 6y ago

I don't disagree with you. However, choosing to go elsewhere isn't meant to sink Amazon - it's meant to support alternatives, to encourage others to support alternatives or at least think about the situation, and yes, to make me feel better about my choices.

NoOneNew 6y ago
Yup. Also, while supporting the "competition", you allow them to play the long game to find and fund ways of taking ground from Amazon when there are missteps. But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings."
- badRNG 6y ago
  >But at the same time, I find it really weird to go, "I morally can't stand for a single thing you're doing and I think you're a generally ill hearted company. Here, take more of my money to help you fund your ill-doings." I can get behind boycotting companies we know do bad things, however I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that this is a means to ending the abuse of their workers, or a means of making the world a better place. This is a political problem, not a consumer problem. Being an ethical consumer seems to be Sisyphean task, as to do so responsibly we'd need to ensure the alternatives we purchase from aren't treating their workers even worse to hold some market share. When we factor in the complexity of supply chains, environmental considerations, and labor practices across the globe (and the relations between core and peripheral nations,) a consumer simply cannot reasonably fit their purchasing decisions within a consistent ethical framework. This is probably the reason behind the phrase "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism."
  - NoOneNew 6y ago
    That phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption". To pretend capitalism is the sudden problem to the world is a feat of self delusion and dodging having any form of self-accountability. Because the world was a perfect place prior to modern capitalism? I'm not saying it's perfect, but seriously, quit pretending like it's the cause of the world's problems. The cause of all our problems is the fact we are human. That and boycotting is political mob mentality. Needing a random person, you'll never meet or have a coffee with, telling you what to do so you can be a "a good person" in their eyes is bullshit. Do it strictly because you believe in your own ethics.
    - badRNG 6y ago
      >the phrase should be "there is no ethical consumption I can think of at least some ways in which consumption might be more ethically neutral. After a natural disaster, you often see communities band together to meet each others needs however they can. In a way, this mirrors how many native cultures approach production and resource distribution. Accepting the resources I need or providing for other's needs according to my ability certainly isn't unethical. There is something fundamentally different about the nature of consumption in economies based on maximizing exchange value vs meeting greatest needs. Otherwise, you likely need to defend the increasingly controversial position that markets maximize utility greater than any alternative.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
One problem is the obvious alternative other than target, Walmart, is far worse than Amazon on almost every measure. The heirs of Sam Walton and who have billions in walmart stock today support creationism, various republican causes and they really really hate unions, much more than Amazon. Being from the south I've seen many small towns decimated by a large Walmart being built on the side of town and then killing the small businesses in the center - this happened to my grandfather's town. He understood what was happening, he was also a walmart stock holder. I'm under no illusions that Amazon has done some of the same effect on local retail. Yet amazon doesn't support creation science.

wjsetzer 6y ago

I agree that voting with your wallet doesn't affect large companies. However, for me, not using Amazon is about ethics and choosing less evil companies. Honestly, and I think others would agree, Amazon has had a declining user experience for years now (product names are nonsense SEO soup and the brands are fake/knock off brands) and not using Amazon can be as much practical as ethical. I'd certainly like to hit Amazon with trust busting regulations, but I have to settle with being "personally responsible" in the meantime.

adamsea 6y ago

I used to agree but now feel differently. Public culture and it’s impact via media are greater than they were back in the day I think. And I think the social value of these gestures - making boycotting companies behaving like amazon normal, and eventually even cool / expected, is a major factor in social change and in precipitating legislation. But it does take decades.