David N. Snyder wrote:
Being a capitalist myself, I knew that the big company, although it is true does not always provide the best benefits; however they do hire hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. The poor and middle class were defending the many small businesses and the mom-and-pop hardware stores in the area. Those mom-and-pop stores don't hire anyone! As the talk mentions, capitalists hire people as a last resort -- they only do so when they are too big to run it themselves.
The real job creators as the talk mentions -- are the consumers and then when the store gets too big, the capitalist must hire staff to run his/her operation.
Ben wrote:It seems from my point of view that consumption appears to be a major driver of economic growth.
retrofuturist wrote:Capitalism really has just become a consumption machine, but it has no inherent checks and balances to question the real cost of the relentless drive to maximise net consumption (e.g. vested interests, wealth/income inequality, environmental degradation).
chownah wrote:...that is why large business are displacing small ones....it is called "efficiency of scale".
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings chownah,
Perhaps their inefficiency explains why so few exist nowadays?
From an Australian perspective, there's only perhaps 3 or so hardware chain stores around... I can't remember the last time I saw a 'mom-and-pop' hardware store in a metropolitan area. Economies of scale simply do not leave room for it.
If you want the scale (and the associated efficiency benefits of scale) without the rigid owner/worker classification inherent in chain stores, the only other viable option seems to be operation as a co-operative.
(sorry I haven't seen the talk ~ i can't access it from my current location)
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 40 guests