3 ms·

You are missing the point... if I shop at a small, more expensive, family run shop, it means I spend more on my shopping and Walmart still exists with all the p

You are missing the point... if I shop at a small, more expensive, family run shop, it means I spend more on my shopping and Walmart still exists with all the problems that entails. Me choosing to shop somewhere else is not even a rounding error in Walmarts profits. My choice will not bring about any change, but it will hurt me. I said I was willing to make the sacrifice IF IT MEANT WALMART WASN'T AROUND ANY MORE. I am not willing to make the sacrifice if it doesn't do any good.

AlbertCory 4y ago
I'm not missing any point, but you're missing one: I'm pointing out that you don't rule the world, and Walmart will exist whatever you do. Some people seem to like it. Your only other option is to lobby publicly for the changes you favor.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  You are still missing my point. I know very well that Walmart will exist no matter where I shop; that is exactly my point. My individual decision will not change anything in regards to Walmarts existence or actions. My only choice is whether I get to enjoy the cheap prices Walmart offers; you say "some people seem to like it", and I am clearly agreeing... everyone likes cheaper prices! I hate the way Walmart treats its workers, but I love the cheap prices... so I either shop there and get the cheap prices or I pay more to shop somewhere else, but either way the workers are going to be treated the same way. Given that, why wouldn't I choose to shop there? If they are going to be abusing their workers no matter what I do, I might as well at least get cheap prices. And that is why "the free market" will never stop the types of abuses that Walmart commits. Your last sentence is EXACTLY WHAT I AM ARGUING FOR. I am saying if we want to change Walmarts behavior, we can ONLY do it through legislation; we can't "vote with our wallet" and expect Walmart to change its behavior. We have to vote with our actual vote. My argument is with people who think we shouldn't regulate businesses because we can use our wallet to change them; I am saying we can't use our wallet for all the reasons I laid out.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > we can't use our wallet .. and yet, millions of people do exactly that. Consumer boycotts happen every day. Sometimes they even have an effect.
    - rolenthedeep 4y ago
      >sometimes they even have an effect This is the point
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      An organized boycott is different than just making an individual choice. And again, a single person defecting from the boycott won't make any difference either way.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        So you don't vote in elections, I take it? After all, almost no election is ever decided by one vote. (If it did happen, they'd have a recount because there are probably counting errors.)
        cortesoft 4y ago
        Rationally, you are right that voting as an individual doesn't matter (I linked the Paradox of Voting in another comment for this very reason). I still do vote, though, because there are non-rational reasons I think voting is important. You are absolutely right, though, that pure game theory says voting is not important, and I believe that is why voting is not how we make changes to our society (at least not directly). It takes organizing.
Xylakant 4y ago
But also, at the same time, the small ethical run business is more likely to survive, keeping the option open for other people to join you. Walmart will still be around doing unethical things, but some people will have an ethical place to work at or shop at.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > But also, at the same time, the small ethical run business is more likely to survive This isn't really true, either, though. Even a small mom-and-pop shop won't be kept in business by a single customer choosing to shop there. Unless we are talking about a speciality shop that only has a few customers, one customer is never going to make or break a retailer. Now, of course you can argue "yeah, but if 50 other people do the same thing then the store will survive!", which is true, but again, my choice doesn't really change anything. My choice to shop there or not doesn't have any affect on the other 49 people, and if the store would survive with 50 customers, it will survive with 49. My choice doesn't matter to either store.
  - yunwal 4y ago
    This is absurd to me. Of course your choice matters to the mom and pop store. Just because you can’t single-handedly keep a mom and pop hardware store, grocery store, and bookstore afloat on your income doesn’t mean they don’t benefit from your business. It’s just good ethics hygiene. And shopping at locally-owned stores always pays off in the long run. You meet interesting people who actually care about where they live and their neighbors.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      He's saying, "I'd like to support them, but dammit! They charge more." Duh.
    - rolenthedeep 4y ago
      The gain or loss of a single customer will have no effect on Walmart or the local mom and pop. The effects only add up if a significant number of people make the same decision. On the individual level, the cost of the local shop is detrimental compared to Walmart. The rational choice for any given individual is to go with the lower price. Choosing otherwise doesn't gain you anything other than that the local spot is a nicer place to visit. At the macro level, nobody wins unless everyone cooperates. At the individual level, you can only win by not cooperating. It's just the prisoner's dilemma. Happy thoughts don't really factor in here, it's not really an ethics problem, it's an economics problem.
dorgo 4y ago
>Me choosing to shop somewhere else is not even a rounding error in Walmarts profits. So you are saying you can make a measurable difference. It's not a super hero story where you save the world on your own.

AlbertCory 4y ago

I'm not missing any point, but you're missing one: I'm pointing out that you don't rule the world, and Walmart will exist whatever you do. Some people seem to like it. Your only other option is to lobby publicly for the changes you favor.

cortesoft 4y ago
You are still missing my point. I know very well that Walmart will exist no matter where I shop; that is exactly my point. My individual decision will not change anything in regards to Walmarts existence or actions. My only choice is whether I get to enjoy the cheap prices Walmart offers; you say "some people seem to like it", and I am clearly agreeing... everyone likes cheaper prices! I hate the way Walmart treats its workers, but I love the cheap prices... so I either shop there and get the cheap prices or I pay more to shop somewhere else, but either way the workers are going to be treated the same way. Given that, why wouldn't I choose to shop there? If they are going to be abusing their workers no matter what I do, I might as well at least get cheap prices. And that is why "the free market" will never stop the types of abuses that Walmart commits. Your last sentence is EXACTLY WHAT I AM ARGUING FOR. I am saying if we want to change Walmarts behavior, we can ONLY do it through legislation; we can't "vote with our wallet" and expect Walmart to change its behavior. We have to vote with our actual vote. My argument is with people who think we shouldn't regulate businesses because we can use our wallet to change them; I am saying we can't use our wallet for all the reasons I laid out.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > we can't use our wallet .. and yet, millions of people do exactly that. Consumer boycotts happen every day. Sometimes they even have an effect.
  - rolenthedeep 4y ago
    >sometimes they even have an effect This is the point
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    An organized boycott is different than just making an individual choice. And again, a single person defecting from the boycott won't make any difference either way.
    - AlbertCory 4y ago
      So you don't vote in elections, I take it? After all, almost no election is ever decided by one vote. (If it did happen, they'd have a recount because there are probably counting errors.)
      - cortesoft 4y ago
        Rationally, you are right that voting as an individual doesn't matter (I linked the Paradox of Voting in another comment for this very reason). I still do vote, though, because there are non-rational reasons I think voting is important. You are absolutely right, though, that pure game theory says voting is not important, and I believe that is why voting is not how we make changes to our society (at least not directly). It takes organizing.

Xylakant 4y ago

But also, at the same time, the small ethical run business is more likely to survive, keeping the option open for other people to join you. Walmart will still be around doing unethical things, but some people will have an ethical place to work at or shop at.

cortesoft 4y ago
> But also, at the same time, the small ethical run business is more likely to survive This isn't really true, either, though. Even a small mom-and-pop shop won't be kept in business by a single customer choosing to shop there. Unless we are talking about a speciality shop that only has a few customers, one customer is never going to make or break a retailer. Now, of course you can argue "yeah, but if 50 other people do the same thing then the store will survive!", which is true, but again, my choice doesn't really change anything. My choice to shop there or not doesn't have any affect on the other 49 people, and if the store would survive with 50 customers, it will survive with 49. My choice doesn't matter to either store.
- yunwal 4y ago
  This is absurd to me. Of course your choice matters to the mom and pop store. Just because you can’t single-handedly keep a mom and pop hardware store, grocery store, and bookstore afloat on your income doesn’t mean they don’t benefit from your business. It’s just good ethics hygiene. And shopping at locally-owned stores always pays off in the long run. You meet interesting people who actually care about where they live and their neighbors.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    He's saying, "I'd like to support them, but dammit! They charge more." Duh.
  - rolenthedeep 4y ago
    The gain or loss of a single customer will have no effect on Walmart or the local mom and pop. The effects only add up if a significant number of people make the same decision. On the individual level, the cost of the local shop is detrimental compared to Walmart. The rational choice for any given individual is to go with the lower price. Choosing otherwise doesn't gain you anything other than that the local spot is a nicer place to visit. At the macro level, nobody wins unless everyone cooperates. At the individual level, you can only win by not cooperating. It's just the prisoner's dilemma. Happy thoughts don't really factor in here, it's not really an ethics problem, it's an economics problem.

dorgo 4y ago

>Me choosing to shop somewhere else is not even a rounding error in Walmarts profits. So you are saying you can make a measurable difference. It's not a super hero story where you save the world on your own.