If we force people to choose between paying the bills and cutting corners we know what happens - we have seen this movie many times in history.
I prefer the idealistic view that each individual can make a change through choice, but the reality is that choice is a privilege that isn't evenly distributed across the population. For example some can afford to not shop at Walmart, others can not - paradoxical as it may be from a local economics perspective.
Regulation is the typical blunt instrument to move the incentives to the business leaders rather than the individual. Other commenters don't think regulation is the answer, but I think most agree doing nothing won't change the status quo soon enough.
> For example some can afford to not shop at Walmart, others can not - paradoxical as it may be from a local economics perspective.
While I personally agree with the sentiment of your comment in general, this piece really is part of the blind spot in my opinion.
The assumption here is that everyone has to get all of their for from a grocery store, and the only question is what quality of products you can afford. It doesn't have to be that way, and wasn't until very recently in human history.
We almost always have alternatives. They just often seem so extreme as to not be feasible. People can grow their own food though. And at least in the US, we could go without a huge portion of the crap we spend money on every year. We just choose not to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice, but its important to realize it is a choice.
I can see your point. What I was hoping to highlight is slightly different which can be illustrated through your comment on growing your own food - you need the privilege of both time and space to even do that. Lacking both you may be forced to choose something that harms your long term interests like shopping at Walmart and putting local grocers you can't afford out of business.
A good example of this is an urban single parent of multiple kids, time and space are likely very scarce and choices are limited.
I prefer the idealistic view that each individual can make a change through choice, but the reality is that choice is a privilege that isn't evenly distributed across the population. For example some can afford to not shop at Walmart, others can not - paradoxical as it may be from a local economics perspective.
Regulation is the typical blunt instrument to move the incentives to the business leaders rather than the individual. Other commenters don't think regulation is the answer, but I think most agree doing nothing won't change the status quo soon enough.