[wbracken]

Employing people at each step in the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies who support the eyewear industry. Plus, employing people at companies that support the companies that support the eyewear industry...etc. etc.

[Someone1234]

Why would any of these jobs be lost in a more competitive eyewear industry? People keep repeating this talking point, but I don't understand what they mean.

Nobody is asking for the eyewear industry to stop existing. We're talking about a single monopoly controlling the majority and driving up prices.

How does an artificially high price and artificially low competition generate more jobs?

[fouc]

I don't believe the previous poster actually included any value judgement in their comment.

Basically the administrative overhead of all the layers is what is taking the bulk of that money.

I agree that those jobs can be redistributed elsewhere instead.

[wbracken]

I never said there shouldn't be competition. The parent asked where money goes...

[mhb]

If you're suggesting that all these jobs are good, for their own sake, then:

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

[aj7]

Only if there’s no learning. The Apollo 1 fire, countless air disasters etc. led to much greater safety.

[mhb]

Of course. But you can say "Only if there's no x" about many x's. The point is that jobs are only good as a means, not an end.

[jerf]

If that was the case, then there'd be no ability for something like Warby Parker or Costco to show how much cheaper it can be the way they do, and it would just be something that cost hundreds of dollars. Costs everybody has can't explain this. And even those costs can't really explain the differential here; 10% and 10x are very different beasts.

[markdown]

Trickle down, eh?