Yes, they shop at Wal-Mart, and it's much more convenient for them.
Then a couple of years later they wonder where all the local businesses went, why all the towns look the same, why there are fewer jobs.
It's naive to think that stopping the odd Wal-Mart or Amazon here and there will help, but it's also naive to think that just because a company is popular that it is doing good on a grander scale.
Then along came delivered groceries and everyone does that and just uses new "local supermarkets" to pick up a few impulse purchases and medicines.
As a result, every row of shops is saturated with takeaways. There are very few traditional local businesses left.
However, everyone is happier as they are not slaves to the requirement to drag stuff around themselves and can concentrate on more interesting things. No tears have been shed. We're all better off.
People just need to now get used to the fact that there isn't a job for everyone as we've reached a pretty good efficiency ceiling.
No, we're all more comfortable, while the economy is going to shit.
> People just need to now get used to the fact that there isn't a job for everyone
Please think about what you're saying.
I did think about what I'm saying. Not everyone has a useful function in society. It's a total fallacy that jobs are available for all and that it's a good metric for the success of a society.
Ah right, I misunderstood your comment. You're taking the position that it's always been like this and the wall marts and amazons of this world are not part of the reason things are like this, and moreover you're saying that societies can be considered successful even with high or rising unemployment.
It seemed to me like you were acknowledging that unemployment was rising and saying that people just had to get used to being jobless.
Have I now understood your position correctly?
Let's see. My axioms (and bear in mind these are written in half an hour) are:
1) People cannot ever be equal.
2) Things are not of equal value.
3) People need and want things.
4) It is not possible for everyone to have everything they want.
5) People want to own things.
6) It would be simpler if people did not want to own things ;)
7) People are fickle.
8) Given 5 and 7, trade will naturally arise.
9) Barter is impractical at scale
10) Barter is impractical across nonlocal distances.
11) Given 8, 9 and 10, money will naturally arise as a token for items.
12) People do not have a constant natural supply of valuable items.
13) People do have a constant natural supply of time and energy, at least for as long as it matters.
14) To gain money, people can sell their items
15) To gain money, people can sell their time and energy
16) Given 12, 13, and 15, jobs will naturally arise as a way to gain money.
At this point I start asking questions that are beyond my knowledge of economics.
a) How does money stop having a hard relationship with the items it originally represented (aka the "Why can't I get five pounds of gold for my fiver any more" question)?
b) How is the value of money set?
c) If money is subject to (a), then doesn't trade in money critically undermine the value of money?
But those notwithstanding, how do you rate my reasoning as to why jobs are essential to society?
edit: perhaps I've only demonstrated that jobs are one way to gain wealth. That's what I'm asking really. Assuming I've not made some huge error with my axioms, what is your number (17) that allows people to acquire money without selling items or their time and energy?
however have you considered charity and socialism (particularly marxism-leninism)?
18) In time there will be nothing worth paying a person for that a machine can't do cheaper or better
19a) People will need to work less and less as a result, and are free to pursue hobbies, be creative, enjoy nature, socialize more, and be less stressed and overall healthier as a result (if the benefits of distributed efficiency are evenly distributed)
19b) People will go hungry and homeless due to not having a source of income because of a system set in place by ignorant voters scared of socialism and communism
20) Utopia or dystopia? We choose
I disagree with 18. Would agree if "nothing" changed to "fewer things". I'm thinking of all manner of things; art, theatre, sex, the social aspect of chatting to your butcher, making better machines, responding to new market needs, etc. Machines can't replace all things, but I agree that there are lots that they can. I suppose if "cheaper or better" are mutually exclusive then I might agree with 18.
19c) People will try socialism or communism and end up being yet another depressing case study in a "failed political ideologies" book.
Cars, public transportation, and now the internet, did/do more damage than anything to small businesses and people are not location trapped.
Big box stores like Wal-Mart become a destination fostering business development nearby to take advantage of the situation
...shows why individual choice fails to give us what we want, and why we need to rely on collective action rather than individual choice to take us to where we want to be.
Don't buy it on Amazon...
"Always lower prices. Always." Yepand lower wages too. The town's inhabitants are also the consumers, so basically the end result is cheaper products AND smaller wages for everyone - and greater income disparity across the country (automation helps boost capital vs labor).
That's very neat. But aren't the people who shop there themselves getting lower wages, so the purchase power remains the same as before?
i.e. my grocery shop is 20% cheaper, but my wages are 20% lower.
They also know that they only need to have, on average, four checkouts open from the hours of 8-6, Monday through Friday, so there is no inefficiency when it comes to staffing, either.
Meanwhile at Mom and Pop's Five and Dime, inventory is brought in once a week on a truck, and if they got rid of cereal X and moved the milk over two aisles how much would their sales increase? Who the hell knows? They are just doing what has worked for the past 40 years. But it's okay, because shoppers in the area like them and because there isn't any meaningful competition, they can just use cost-based pricing to guarantee a satisfactory margin and keep themselves in business.
Unfortunately in this scenario, local town inhabitants are paying for this inefficiency. When Wal-Mart moves in and gives the consumers more choice at lower prices, Wal-Mart robs Mom and Pop of their margin, keeps a little of it, and gives the rest to the consumers. Your wages aren't 20% lower just because Wal-Mart ironed out a huge producer surplus. You are wealthier because you can go to the mall and buy a quality shirt for $30 that was made for about two bucks whereas before you would have had to make your own shirt which might take you most of a day. This is how economic progression works. Better business practices make society wealthier through efficiency.
Well, no. I can't find rabbit (meat, not pet) for love nor money. Because it "doesn't sell". Time was, the butcher would always have rabbits and if people didn't buy it they would go to his dogs.
> there is no inefficiency when it comes to staffing, either.
inefficiency, otherwise known as plenty of jobs.
I'm seriously not convinced that the ideal society is the one that is most efficient.
Wonderful things live in the obscure, inefficient corners of things.
All this is mitigated somewhat when a town can issue its own currency. But if they are forced to use the country's fiat currency, they may start defaulting on their loans. This can explain what happened with the PIGS countries' economies after they joined the EU for example.
In any event, the income disparity pushes some people around (making them move) . There is an ever greater amount of people unable to earn enough to leave their small town to a "booming center" without significant risk. Those who do are willing to put up with worse conditions in order to get a chance at the big bucks. This happened for 10 years in the Great Depression as farmers migrated to the cities and our country transitioned to be dominated by industrial sector. A sector which has been disrupted in the last 30-40 years much as the agricultural sector was before.
However, even with all that, a growing "underclass" of people becomes less economically significant. For example why develop vaccines for them? The overall pictureis that automation increasingly favors the capitalists over the wage laborers. One of the best ways that has worksd to mitigate this is to decentralize the capital, eg have wordpress and linux instead of facebook and windows. Patents work against this, though.