The problem is capitalism and not really 7-11. If 7-11 didn't do this, family mart would and the guy would probably lose his store altogether.
Capitalism doesn't care about people or the distress they feel during transitions. It's very effective at generally raising up the living standards of all people, but can be pretty inhumane at times when dealing with certain groups of people who's skills and services are becoming obsolete.
The only choice really is retraining and switching careers and having social safety nets. The other alternative, socialism, just spreads the pain across the entire world.
Our only realistic chance at reducing global poverty anytime soon is via capitalism. Sucks for this 7-11 owner, but that's how it goes.
Are you really sure that capitalism will reduce global poverty?
The core of capitalism is competition. This may result in higher quality and larger choice, but if these are sufficient enough it will in the end result in lower prices. This has to be done through efficiency but will also result in lower wages.
I think unconstrained, uncontrolled capitalism will result in 90% of the global population working very low income, replaceable jobs, or being completely replaced by automation.
Yeah. The social uplift only happens to people connected in some way to where the capital is accumulating. If you live where the capital is flowing from you're gonna have a bad time.
> I think unconstrained, uncontrolled capitalism will result in 90% of the global population working very low income, replaceable jobs, or being completely replaced by automation.
I think that's likely; after all, capitalism already replaced the jobs of 90% of the developed world population with automation and other efficiencies: that's why most of us no longer work in agriculture.
It was for the unemployed farmers help that is no longer needed and is now stuck with a house in a town where the prices have dropped way below the mortage on the house and 60 km to the closest store/gas station.
Mercantilism was also a pretty good economic system until it wasn't. It's not sound reasoning to say that capitalism had a net positive impact (at least in North America and Europe) through much of the 19th and 20th centuries and conclude that it is and will forever be the optimal system.
I think there's a compelling argument to be made that in this century, with forces like globalization and automation removing a lot of the leverage which labor had, modern capitalism is going to result in a net negative economic state for a vast majority of people.
Capitalism (free markets) is just a tool, not a silver bullet. Depending on the situation it might be the correct tool, or if may be the wrong tool. It is also fine to combine different tools. Some markets are best served by capitalism, others are better served by a monopoly, or a state organized market. Most of the world already concluded that healthcare (insurance) and a free market are not the best fit.
Capitalism doesn't care about people or the distress they feel during transitions. It's very effective at generally raising up the living standards of all people, but can be pretty inhumane at times when dealing with certain groups of people who's skills and services are becoming obsolete.
The only choice really is retraining and switching careers and having social safety nets. The other alternative, socialism, just spreads the pain across the entire world.
Our only realistic chance at reducing global poverty anytime soon is via capitalism. Sucks for this 7-11 owner, but that's how it goes.