|
|
|
|
|
|
by Periodic
3479 days ago
|
|
|
What is cheapest in the short term is often not the best in the long run. Economics assumes that the long-term consequences are priced into all decisions, but those consequences may not be clear and people with limited means have to make some very hard trade-offs. The costs may also be put on society as a whole and not borne by the individual. It can be helpful to limit those options as a society. My best guess at the risks is that we may lose something valuable as a society or damage mental health if we push people away from social interaction. Many people will remain healthy, but those who are in difficult circumstances may find themselves on a downward spiral as they are further isolated from their communities. What if your community doesn't have a large supermarket? We talk about food deserts in the US right now, what if we have social deserts? A simple example of short-term v long-term, look at soda and sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages. They're extremely cheap. Often less expensive than bottles of water in the US. This encourages many people to buy them as they are a cheap source of calories and sweetness. However, it's only many decades later that we've discovered the damage they can do when consumed for long periods of time. Many people consuming them don't have better food options. A few cities are starting to tax them to make the costs more evident. Gasoline is another good example. The US is addicted to cheap gasoline and doesn't know how to stop even though we are now aware of the potentially catastrophic consequences. |
|
|
1. Social interactions at commercial centres are valuable and Amazon and others who follow will be unable to offer such value.
2. Social interactions at commercial centres are more valuable than the beneficiaries are conscious of.
#1 I think we all agree on. #2 is the critical point and the degree of which is arguable and would swing Amazon's innovations between good and bad.
Let's imagine that on average, whenever someone goes into a shop and interacts with another human they are gaining 50% of their social wellbeing (i.e. a lot). Let's also imagine that on average whenever someone goes into a shop and interacts with a human they leave believing they have gained only 1% of their social wellbeing (i.e. not much). Such a person is likely to stop shopping at a shop with tills and cashiers in favour of a humanless shop such as Amazon Go. However that would likely be a mistake because they would lose half of their social wellbeing without even realising. This in my opinion would put automated shops into the category of a socially 'bad' thing.
Now imagine the actual social benefit of traditional shops is 5% (not huge but not insignificant) and the perceived social benefit is also 5% (i.e. we're fully aware of this benefit). In that case, people should be able to make the choice of which kind of shop is best for them based on a complete set of information. This in my opinion would put automated shops into the category of a socially 'good' thing. They offer more choice coupled with the relevant information to make that choice.
The discrepancy of perceived vs actual benefits can explain why we make the wrong choices with regards to a lot of market decisions from driving a gasoline car to eating at a restaurant. The best way to determine whether a market option is socially good or bad is to try to measure this discrepancy, see if it exists and if so, is it significantly large?