Hacker News Reader

> The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money. And everyone has a choice to vote with their wallets and through their actions in general.

This ‘voting with your wallet’ argument always ignores the problem of collective action. Even if every individual would prefer the bad companies to not exist (or at least to not behave the way they do), the rational choice is still to purchase products from them if their product is superior and/or cheaper.

Take something like Walmart or Amazon. I think a majority of people dislike the way they do business (the way they treat their employees, the environment, and competitors), but the only choice a consumer has is “shop there and get the cheaper prices, and the company continues to exist like it does” or “don’t shop their, pay more money for things, and the company continues to exist like it does”

Me, as an individual customer, can’t make the company stop existing in its current form. They aren’t going to miss my business. It isn’t even a rounding error on their balance sheet. My only choice is to get the cheaper prices or not.

Even if the company would change if everyone stopped shopping, I don’t get to make that choice. Hell, if everyone else is stopping shopping there and they are going to go out of business, it is STILL in my best interest to shop their while I can and save the money… it isn’t like my business is going to SAVE them any more than it will kill them.

You can’t kill a business practice by voting with your wallet.

The only time consumer choice will work is when the individual consumer has a better alternative; if I get a better PERSONAL experience (either cheaper or a better product) by shopping somewhere else, then voting with your wallet makes sense and will work (because everyone will have the same incentive). Companies won’t be punished for their external costs by their customers, since the customers aren’t choosing to suffer those costs or not; they suffer the external costs no matter what, they only can choose to enjoy the benefits or not. Why suffer the external costs AND not even get to enjoy the benefits?

This is why change has to come from some binding collective action (like legislation or regulation or something), not individual consumer choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem

You are correct in the sense that a single person can't change anything, but the issue is a level deeper. The thing is, even if you dislike a company and don't use it, you aren't willing to bully people who do use it.

If as a society, we were more willing to police ourselves, you would see real change. In the end, acceptance of peers is the number one fundamental drive for a lot of people past basic needs.

>The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money.

Small quibble. The reason why people make money off stocks is largely because people think people will give those companies in the future. People aren’t just trading on dividends, they’re trading on PE ratios.

Otherwise, companies like Tesla would be worth much less than Toyota (which gets more revenue, higher gross profit, and higher profit margins).

True, but a company has to be shown to actually make things that people want. If Tesla didn't sell cars or sold very little, they won't be hyped up as much as they are now.

I think if you look at the numbers, it doesn’t make sense. For Toyota to have a similar market cap at their current PE, they would need to sell something like 95% of the total cars worldwide. So unless people think Tesla will have a worldwide automotive monopoly, they are paying for something other than what they’re doing with cars.

Tesla has the best charging network - which you don't need a Tesla to access - and all other charging networks seem to be poorly incentivized by not having their own cars that they need to improve the user experience for, as those network's chargers are broken and poorly maintained

Tesla becomes a power and taxi company, diversified away from the car sales

Thanks for proving my point to the letter.

It wasn’t a rebuttal so you’re welcome?

I think what’s really a meme is the idea that withholding payment is the defacto way of creating accountability towards a stakeholder that you don’t like, since its not and also doesn't work

Its goofy and cringe that the left has made that their whole identity, only to spend half of their adult life slowly noticing it doesn't work while isolating their prior friends that dont participate in the process

> or is there a bottom line where people start paying attention enough and actually fighting for change when it gets bad enough.

As long as the majority of people are comfortable while being apathetic they will not care. They will happily maintain that status quo. When things get uncomfortable for the majority, then will there be action. Just make sure the people are fed and entertained just enough and you're safe.

> For example, take Elon and his actions over the past few years. What should have happened is that Tesla sales dropped across the board, and everyone who owns a Tesla should have been in a rush to sell it for fear of it getting scratched or them personally blacklisted from stuff and ridiculed for driving a Tesla.

I think you overestimate the number of people who make principled stands on their product buying decisions based on the actions of company executives. I don't think that's the same thing has "people don't care"; I think some people just don't think they should compromise on their needs/wants for what they see as unrelated reasons.

> Tesla employees should also have faced the same public pressure and quit.

In an ideal world, sure. But we live in a country where health insurance is tied to employment and employers, and it's not exactly a wonderful market for job-seekers these days. I expect there were many people at Tesla who were unhappy with Musk and wanted to leave, but felt that the risks of doing so were too high. Again, this is not the same as "people don't care".

> And you look ridiculous if you refuse to get in your coworkers Tesla.

As you should. Making a fuss over this sort of thing when you're all trying to get to an offsite business meeting, or just a group lunch, is eye-rollingly immature.

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that people are apathetic and don't care. Like with many things, the situation is more complicated than that, and people have to weigh their needs and (personal, financial, etc.) security against whatever principles they may have. On top of that, there are so many things that we "need" to care about and consider, that if we tried to actually take everyone's pet outrage into account, we'd literally do nothing.

And some people don't think it's necessary to group people's politics or general malfeasance with their "art". (E.g., should people stop watching and enjoying movies produced, written, or directed by convicted sexual harassers or abusers? Maybe? But that's an individual decision, and I don't think there's a right or wrong answer there.)

I think there's also an aspect of "who's the loudest shithead today?" going on too. Musk seems like a truly reprehensible person, and I wouldn't buy a Tesla. But what about GM's leadership? What about the history of some German car makers supporting the Nazis back in the 1930s and 40s? Musk is loud about his shittiness, but others are quieter and sometimes their misdeeds go farther in the past.

You're conflating "what people want" with "only choice"

If you look at polling this is not what the majority want

Since much of this truth is merely rhetorical, socialized truth, not immutable physics, the fix is to propagate a new narrative about how the economy works, how politics work, and threaten the elders the way they threaten the youth. They are older and weaker naturally. End the one sided ageism

>Philosophically speaking, this is what people want though

No- it's what the rich and powerful want and they have forced their ways on everyone because there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Right. Under a dictatorship, you wouldn’t just say philosophy speaking this is what people want because if they didn’t, they would revolt.

You have a point, but I think the situation can be framed as a question of "what people want" by modelling the decision better. (People under a dictator sometimes do revolt, but often don't.)

The choice people have is not between a dictator and no dictator, it's between a dictator and a period of instability and chaos, possibly including bloody fighting or even famine, the outcome of which is (a) completely uncertain even in the unlikely event that you know that ~everyone wants the dictator gone and (b) might be that the dictator's forces still come out on top, or that someone even worse is installed into power.