4 ms·
This seems to always be the issue, the visceral experiencing of prices now at the cash register versus long term effects. “But if Walmart’s example reveals any
by dpflan 2y ago
This seems to always be the issue, the visceral experiencing of prices now at the cash register versus long term effects.
“But if Walmart’s example reveals anything, it is that, in the long term, low prices can have costs of their own.”
The scale of corporation can pull many levers in the pursuit of profit and can have longer vision because it has economic means to persist, the individual consumer is weak and short sighted in comparison, always.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoDoesn't matter to many people. They would be glad for the area to be poorer if it's better for them. I.E. They don't get poorer, but other people do, and they're purchasing power increases.
- dpflan 2y agoYes, that is why the problem continues.
- tgv 2y agoPoverty often comes with crime and other problems. I don't think anyone likes that in their neighbourhood.
- campbel 2y agoSure, but as OP said, consumers are short sighted. Communal issues will always be secondary to immediate personal issues.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoConsumers are short sighted. On this we can agree. But are they short sighted because they are taught to be short sighted, or is this some irrevocable aspect of the human condition? If you grow up in a society that emphases the virtues of individuality and deemphasises the impact of the social/group condition upon your own lived experience, it's not really surprising that you'd rate "immediate personal issues" above "communal" ones.
- hooverd 2y agoConsumers want to eat cake and lose weight. I think "the tragedy of the commons" isn't universal. It's an argument for enclosure. But the commons can be run over by people who don't believe in communal good and instead want to be doing the enclosure.
- campbel 2y agoGood points. Social reinforcement could play a role as well, e.g. is it frowned upon to engage in certain consumer behaviors.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoNot just frowned upon. Think about the difference it would make if everyone was more aware of the personal cost to them of poverty, homelessness and so forth? In the current world, living in a place that doesn't do things the way the US does can accomplish this (at least temporarily).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoFirst - let's think about who thinks like this primarily: Relatively wealthy people in suburban or rural areas (who are by no means actually wealthy by American standards). Poverty isn't going to affect their neighborhoods. You don't go from having a $750k house on the outskirts of a suburb of Atlanta or Dallas or a $500k house in Montgomery Al or Jackson MS to suddenly being overwhelmed with neighborhood poverty because Walmart comes in or a bunch of unions in town get busted. The affects will be felt in the suburban center where the lower middle class and poorer renters live. The crime that follows will almost exclusively be problems for OTHER people. If they have this thinking, they couldn't care less about crime in YOUR neighborhood. You can bet, for sure, if crime makes its way to THEIR neighborhood, they'll immediately get more police force - probably paid for primarily at YOUR expense.
- bluGill 2y agoTheir larger purchasing power means that they need those people to get busy producing stuff they need so they have something to spend more money on.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y agoYou don't need the production to happen in your podunk town or suburb. Walmart will gladly import it for you from elsewhere. If you're talking about services, if you're purely greedy, it's better for you to have more people without good jobs so you can take advantage of them having to work undesirable service jobs at lower and lower wages.
- bluGill 2y agoRight those people need to move to a city where there is need of them-