3 ms·
It's not about that, it's about the power structure. Imagine a hypothetical small town with several owner-operated grocery store, a local power station, owner-o
by john_moscow 6y ago
It's not about that, it's about the power structure. Imagine a hypothetical small town with several owner-operated grocery store, a local power station, owner-operated service companies, etc. Each of the involved actors is knowledgeable about what they are doing. They are hard to replace, their experience is important, so they have more bargaining power and can charge higher for their work. The wealth is more or less evenly distributed among the community. Most people can afford a house and a good living. They also have to maintain business relations with other people (as opposed to faceless corporations). They need each other, are nice to each other and can relate to each other's problems.
Now look what happens when centrally managed grocery chains, power companies, repair services, etc. move in. All management is centralized. All locals are now employed by one of the big companies following corporate protocol. They are now easily replaceable, so 80% of the town works on a minimum wage after completing a one-week training course. Most of the wealth gets transferred to the corporations. Another 10% of the town works as middle management for the corporations, stuck playing dirty political games. The luckiest 10% keeps positions that cannot be taken by corporations: small niche businesses, trades, doctor practices. Since most of the people are replaceable, people don't really need other people. They depend on corporations instead, so maintaining interpersonal relations becomes unnecessary. People hate each other over small disagreements. They envy others' jobs. They consider life very unfair because in the absence of a clearly visible connection between the merit and the outcome, the grass on the other side always looks greener.
The "well-regulated economy" usually implies raising the taxes for top earners and redistributing the wealth to lower earners. Except, the corporations usually find tricks to avoid it, so you end up taxing the few remaining non-replaceable people, and redistributing it down the road. Supply/demand comes into play, so asset prices rise accordingly, 80% of people still cannot afford a decent living from their salary. Self-improvement still doesn't pay, since the corporations want people to be replaceable. So, social tensions are still high, and on top of that, we start having a shortage of doctors, niche shops, etc., because with the higher taxes and hostile attitude from lower-earners, it's just not worth the hassle anymore. On top of that, we now have a class of social justice politicians, who appeal to groups of people by pitting them against other groups and promising better treatment at the expense of other groups. So not only the pie is shrinking, but we are now supposed to fight for it.
If you want to fix the problem, you need to incentivize personal self-improvement again. Tax the hell out of monopolies, platforms and aggregators. Make sure running your small business (and learning how to make your customers happy) becomes viable again. Give the economic leverage back to the people putting their time into it, and not to the abstract corporations.
- neatze 6y agoYou making great points, I never thought about this way, it is compelling idea. If economics taught me anything is that there is always trade-offs; what are possible trade-offs when there is substantial constrains on monopolies, platforms, and aggregators ?
- lukeramsden 6y agoThings that rely on insane scale to work completely cease to exist, along with the innovation they leave in their wake. Whether this is a bad thing or not is probably subjective.
- MontyCarloHall 6y agoCertain things are only possible at scale. Take Amazon as an example. Its vast scale and vertical integration means that I can purchase something often much more cheaply than any smaller competitor can offer it, and have it shipped and arrive on the same day for a nominal fee (something totally unthinkable even 10 years ago). So while middle class jobs running mom-and-pop retail stores are lost, we may gain a commensurate decrease in the cost of goods. I’m not an economist, so I can’t begin to speculate whether this is a net economic gain. Is it better to have more higher paying jobs but more expensive goods, or fewer higher paying jobs and cheaper goods? Is this a false dichotomy? It’s interesting to note that inflation in the price of pretty much all consumer goods has dramatically lagged income inflation over the last 20 years[0], suggesting that net consumer savings have indeed been substantial. [0] https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selected-us-consumer-goods-and-services-wages https://www.patientrightsadvocate.org/price-changes-on-selec...
- john_moscow 6y agoIronically, the "trinkets in exchange for land" thing happened to the American natives 400 years ago. I think, most people would agree that it didn't pan out as a big win for them. Now a similar thing is happening to the middle class and I don't think enough people will see it this way before it's too late.
- 6y ago