5 ms·

>Amazon has left a trail of destruction—competitors undercut, suppliers squeezed... We normally call that progress. That "trail of destruction" is leaving mon

by tsotha 12y ago

>Amazon has left a trail of destruction—competitors undercut, suppliers squeezed... We normally call that progress. That "trail of destruction" is leaving money in the hands of millions of people who used to be captive to the local brick and mortar retailers.

walterbell 12y ago
Are those the same people whose jobs were lost due to Walmart and Amazon? Or who prefer to have a vibrant local downtown?
- facepalm 12y ago
  If you want a job, why not just dig a hole in the street and try to get paid for it? That would not be different from keeping a job that is not needed anymore alive just for the sake of the job. If you feel bad about Amazon, donate 10% of what you buy at Amazon to a "hole digger foundation" which pays people who lost their jobs because of Amazon to dig holes.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - lelandbatey 12y ago
      If that's what consumers decide they want, then I don't think its wrong to say that is their purpose. It's kinda sad to see them go, but that's OK. We no longer see as many of the beautiful locomotives as we used to, even though they where excellently engineered with tremendous history. But that's OK, since they've been replaced by other means of transportation/shipping. Things change, sometimes that sucks. We all move on and try to make a more awesome world in other ways.
  - dkarapetyan 12y ago
    Incidentally smile.amazon.com does this for charities. Whatever you buy from that link a certain percentage of the sale goes to your chosen charity.
  - bonaldi 12y ago
    There's a tragedy of the commons at work here. Amazon is playing in a new global marketplace, and the unquestioned assumption is that the lower prices that result for consumers are an overall good for society. But there are plenty of indications that's not true, and that minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers that in turn support millions more local jobs may be better for society overall. Arguing that a job is "not needed anymore" in this case is like arguing "keeping your own field that is not needed anymore" is stupid just because there's some new common grazing ground opened up.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      > minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers Except higher sticker prices on commodity goods are regressive. If people are worried about the cost of living, raising the cost of essentials is absolutely worse, all things being equal. I would like to see the math behind the way to raise the cost of toilet paper while simultaneously making it universally easier to buy toilet paper. There's a case to be made that raising prices (or taxes) on non-essentials is a good idea, but pricing rules inevitably become susceptible to lobbying and discourage innovation (why invent a yacht that costs half as much to manufacture?). Introducing "sin" taxes (cigarettes, oil, carbon emissions, corn syrup) might be a good idea if there are affordable alternatives, but you're also introducing morals into your economic system, which has its own problems. If the concern is that it's hard to earn enough money to live, why not address that problem directly through minimum incomes, earned income tax credits, and the like? I don't see why we have to interfere with pricing to achieve those ends.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      What indications are there? And isn't what you describe just a very inefficient system for distributing money? Why not free up the workers and try to find something new for them to do?
    - tsotha 12y ago
      >But there are plenty of indications that's not true, and that minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers that in turn support millions more local jobs may be better for society overall. I doubt that's actually true. The problem is job losses are easy to attribute to Amazon's influence, whereas job creation is not. But that doesn't make it any less real.
- tsotha 12y ago
  More efficiency always results in lost jobs. But the money consumers are saving is going somewhere, so there will be new jobs in other sectors. Creative destruction and all that. The Luddites were upset because of job loss to automated looms, but in the end everyone was better off.
  - lotsofcows 12y ago
    Almost everyone¹ ¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Government_response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Government_response

by tsotha 12y ago

walterbell 12y ago

Are those the same people whose jobs were lost due to Walmart and Amazon? Or who prefer to have a vibrant local downtown?

facepalm 12y ago
If you want a job, why not just dig a hole in the street and try to get paid for it? That would not be different from keeping a job that is not needed anymore alive just for the sake of the job. If you feel bad about Amazon, donate 10% of what you buy at Amazon to a "hole digger foundation" which pays people who lost their jobs because of Amazon to dig holes.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - lelandbatey 12y ago
    If that's what consumers decide they want, then I don't think its wrong to say that is their purpose. It's kinda sad to see them go, but that's OK. We no longer see as many of the beautiful locomotives as we used to, even though they where excellently engineered with tremendous history. But that's OK, since they've been replaced by other means of transportation/shipping. Things change, sometimes that sucks. We all move on and try to make a more awesome world in other ways.
- dkarapetyan 12y ago
  Incidentally smile.amazon.com does this for charities. Whatever you buy from that link a certain percentage of the sale goes to your chosen charity.
- bonaldi 12y ago
  There's a tragedy of the commons at work here. Amazon is playing in a new global marketplace, and the unquestioned assumption is that the lower prices that result for consumers are an overall good for society. But there are plenty of indications that's not true, and that minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers that in turn support millions more local jobs may be better for society overall. Arguing that a job is "not needed anymore" in this case is like arguing "keeping your own field that is not needed anymore" is stupid just because there's some new common grazing ground opened up.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    > minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers Except higher sticker prices on commodity goods are regressive. If people are worried about the cost of living, raising the cost of essentials is absolutely worse, all things being equal. I would like to see the math behind the way to raise the cost of toilet paper while simultaneously making it universally easier to buy toilet paper. There's a case to be made that raising prices (or taxes) on non-essentials is a good idea, but pricing rules inevitably become susceptible to lobbying and discourage innovation (why invent a yacht that costs half as much to manufacture?). Introducing "sin" taxes (cigarettes, oil, carbon emissions, corn syrup) might be a good idea if there are affordable alternatives, but you're also introducing morals into your economic system, which has its own problems. If the concern is that it's hard to earn enough money to live, why not address that problem directly through minimum incomes, earned income tax credits, and the like? I don't see why we have to interfere with pricing to achieve those ends.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    What indications are there? And isn't what you describe just a very inefficient system for distributing money? Why not free up the workers and try to find something new for them to do?
  - tsotha 12y ago
    >But there are plenty of indications that's not true, and that minimally higher prices spread across millions of customers that in turn support millions more local jobs may be better for society overall. I doubt that's actually true. The problem is job losses are easy to attribute to Amazon's influence, whereas job creation is not. But that doesn't make it any less real.
tsotha 12y ago
More efficiency always results in lost jobs. But the money consumers are saving is going somewhere, so there will be new jobs in other sectors. Creative destruction and all that. The Luddites were upset because of job loss to automated looms, but in the end everyone was better off.
- lotsofcows 12y ago
  Almost everyone¹ ¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Government_response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite#Government_response