4 ms·

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 resu

by 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.

by bonaldi 12y ago

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.