In a big way I hate it, but Amazon is truly great

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I completely disagree. The internet is full of fake ads, sponsored product reviews and bot posts. It's really hard to try make informed shopping decisions, and rather frustrating.

There's huge value in going to a store and the person telling you what things they never see returned, what features they notice people don't really actually use, what new products are coming etc.

Bike stores are the perfect example. Online bike parts used to be a huge business, and the prices were admittedly great. All the major component manufactures basically took a stance that pricing would be the same everywhere, and made the main channel to buy bike parts local stores.

I love not even having to think twice before going to the store down the street, talking to some familiar faces, getting good info, and seeing what I'm buying before I pull the trigger. I also love the support if anything doesn't go as planned or I need some install tips.

We're hitting the point where we don't really have valuable uses for excess labour like we did when agriculture transformation was happening.

These jobs provide a lot of intangible value, and the "productivity above all else" mantra is running it's course as it hits some extremes.

Canada is facing a massive labour shortage. Canada 100% does require more efficient allocation of their existing labour. Canada absolutely needs to start training retail employees for more skilled labour roles.

Bike parts also seems like a perfect example of when to rely on reviews online. Unless you are a bike part aficionado to begin with, you're much better off relying on an online community that can direct you to the parts you need for X purpose.

It's great if you have some kind of working relationship with a dealer you trust, but most people don't have that, and for every great retailer out there who is going to provide honest info to prospective buyers, there's many more dishonest ones who are just going to try to close a sale.

From what I've seen from niche industries, like bike part sales, those people aren't at risk of closing. They'll always be communities that support those retailers. It's more the Sport Chek type stores who have kids pushing products they have no idea about who are in trouble.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

We’ve gone round this before when discussing automation. But it isn’t a fantasy world. It’s the world we currently live in. The labour required to meet our basic needs is far lower than 125 years ago.

But quite simply the surplus value created from the more efficient distribution of goods is being given to the owners of the companies and the customers rather than to the person whose job was displaced.

So the issue is that the the government fails to capture the value from automation and efficiency and instead of reducing labour done we spend on luxurys.

Oh give me a break GGG. This idea that nobody will need to work in order to get the things they need and we will force the companies profiting from automation to pay for everything comes off as some sort of communist fantasy.

As to what politicians do to earn votes? I don’t think that is a metric we should use for anything.

Well you’re entitled to your opinion but I think most people vote based on what they (right or wrongfully) think will help their lives. Right now having a good job helps improve your life. Maybe that will change if your communist utopia theory ever materializes but until then jobs are gonna matter to people

[GGG]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Oh give me a break GGG. This idea that nobody will need to work in order to get the things they need and we will force the companies profiting from automation to pay for everything comes off as some sort of communist fantasy.



Well you’re entitled to your opinion but I think most people vote based on what they (right or wrongfully) think will help their lives. Right now having a good job helps improve your life. Maybe that will change if your communist utopia theory ever materializes but until then jobs are gonna matter to people

We already allow people not to work and tax companies who profit to fund it. We have decided that once you reach 65 that taxation of the surplus value produced by businesses (and personal taxes individuals pay also come from this value) will be taxed to support people not to work.

So this is just a matter of degree. Getting rid of human labour and jobs to accomplish the same task is positive. It’s allowed for science and art to develop. To be opposed to something on the basis it does a job more efficiently is opposing the wrong thing.

Oppose it because it moves where the surplus is used from the local enconomy to the global one.

This is important because the policy solutions to solve the problem require the problem to be stated correctly. The problem isn’t the loss of a job due to efficiency or automation.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

We already allow people not to work and tax companies who profit to fund it. We have decided that once you reach 65 that taxation of the surplus value produced by businesses (and personal taxes individuals pay also come from this value) will be taxed to support people not to work.

So this is just a matter of degree. Getting rid of human labour and jobs to accomplish the same task is positive. It’s allowed for science and art to develop. To be opposed to something on the basis it does a job more efficiently is opposing the wrong thing.

Oppose it because it moves where the surplus is used from the local enconomy to the global one.

This is important because the policy solutions to solve the problem require the problem to be stated correctly. The problem isn’t the loss of a job due to efficiency or automation.

Except that Canada desperately needs more and more productive workers right now. Our economy is getting F-ed pretty quickly, because our worker productivity is falling.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Except that Canada desperately needs more and more productive workers right now. Our economy is getting F-ed pretty quickly, because our worker productivity is falling.

I've read your last few posts and I think you're absolutely right but the same problem remains.

Our infrastructure cannot handle more people.

We need more people. I will not argue that point and I never have, and I love cultural diversity.

But we dont have Educational, Housing or Medical infrastructure capable of handling such an influx of people.

Once again, we need more people, but we can't handle it sustainably. There has to be a real sustainable plan put into place for this to work. Just 'letting in more people' is going to create more problems than it solves.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

We already allow people not to work and tax companies who profit to fund it. We have decided that once you reach 65 that taxation of the surplus value produced by businesses (and personal taxes individuals pay also come from this value) will be taxed to support people not to work.

Allow them? You can stop working at 40 if you have the means. OAS isn’t enough to live on. Pensions, RRSPs, CPP are things that the retiree contributes to throughout their time working to fund

So this is just a matter of degree. Getting rid of human labour and jobs to accomplish the same task is positive. It’s allowed for science and art to develop. To be opposed to something on the basis it does a job more efficiently is opposing the wrong thing.

Your entire position is predicated on the assumption that businesses would continue to operate in a jurisdiction where they don’t require labour and would be essentially funding the people’s purchases of their products with their own money. I don’t see a lot of businesses wanting to set up shop in a place like that.

Oppose it because it moves where the surplus is used from the local enconomy to the global one.

I can’t oppose it for being a pipe dream?

This is important because the policy solutions to solve the problem require the problem to be stated correctly. The problem isn’t the loss of a job due to efficiency or automation.

You’re entitled to your opinion. To me, job losses matter because your hypothetical solution does not currently exist.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Locke

I've read your last few posts and I think you're absolutely right but the same problem remains.

Our infrastructure cannot handle more people.

We need more people. I will not argue that point and I never have, and I love cultural diversity.

But we dont have Educational, Housing or Medical infrastructure capable of handling such an influx of people.

Once again, we need more people, but we can't handle it sustainably. There has to be a real sustainable plan put into place for this to work. Just 'letting in more people' is going to create more problems than it solves.

That seems like a really strong argument for trying to increase the productivity of the people who already live here to me.

The discussion has been about "is it bad for unproductive businesses to shut down because they do create jobs". I think the answer is "no" because that frees up those people to do more productive work. And we do have a shortage of labour in this country. So re-allocating people from low-productivity tasks to higher-productivity is very helpful, since it doesn't require any additional housing or infrastructure. And we're short of those as well.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by blankall

Canada has a shortage of workers, which is only supposed to get worse. Having pointless retail stores open, because they employed people seems pretty pointless.

I find with Amazon and Walmart market, if you google the sellers, you often find their websites, where you can purchase the products directly from them, but cheaper.

I agree with your points, especially about the labour shortage and the need for a smarter allocation of workers in Canada. But what really frustrates me is how much power companies like Amazon, Walmart, Costco, and Loblaws have over the retail market already. Their dominance isn’t just unhealthy for competition--it’s unhealthy for consumers. It limits our choices, stifles innovation, and makes the entire retail landscape feel more impersonal and exploitative.

Sure, niche industries like bike part retailers might survive because of dedicated communities, but those are exceptions, not the norm. Most smaller retailers can’t compete with the pricing or convenience of these giants, and that’s not the kind of world I want to live in.

A retail market controlled by a handful of players isn’t just depressing; it’s a dead-end for consumers and workers alike.

[Jason14h]

Online shopping has allowed anyone to enter the global marketplace . There’s way more choice when buying then ever before .

Stifled innovation ? It’s the exact opposite .

How do you think shopping was before ? Is there some shopping Utopia I missed out on ?

People not having to have capital upfront for a storefront is the best thing to happen to smaller and niche goods innovation ever

[Snuffleupagus]

This thread is so old I forgot I started it, I suppose it's just me that's old

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Online shopping has allowed anyone to enter the global marketplace . There’s way more choice when buying then ever before .

Stifled innovation ? It’s the exact opposite .

How do you think shopping was before ? Is there some shopping Utopia I missed out on ?

People not having to have capital upfront for a storefront is the best thing to happen to smaller and niche goods innovation ever

Sorry, what innovations have come from online shopping that are not exclusively catered toward online shopping?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, what innovations have come from online shopping that are not exclusively catered toward online shopping?

I think he's saying that niche products (ie. inventions) can find a market more easily. And sites like KickStarter are a huge boost to the process...it's kind of unfathomable how hard it must have been to find funding in the past.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by blankall

From what I've seen from niche industries, like bike part sales, those people aren't at risk of closing. They'll always be communities that support those retailers. It's more the Sport Chek type stores who have kids pushing products they have no idea about who are in trouble.

That's a very valid point, I was romanticizing independent retail a bit there without acknowledging most retail is just as ####ty as the online experience, but you have to drive there.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The luddites believed this when they were smashing cotton spinners hundreds of years ago. If you believe this is the end of human progress then sure.

But the huge numbers of people who have believed that for centuries have all been wrong. Human ingenuity is a great thing.

We're seeing cracks. The US is arguably the biggest breeding ground of innovation and progress, yet work for participation is in a long term decline:

Spoiler!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I think he's saying that niche products (ie. inventions) can find a market more easily. And sites like KickStarter are a huge boost to the process...it's kind of unfathomable how hard it must have been to find funding in the past.

I could see that somewhat, though zi don’t think the latter is relevant to online shopping.

Kind of goes right against his point though and supports what Mints is saying. While it’s fine and dandy that it’s easier to get a product to market, the speed at which a much cheaper version is produced and sponsored on Amazon who will ship it to your door tomorrow should be concerning.

[Torture]

Amazon is so convenient but man the perpetuation of garbage Chinese knock-offs with alphabet soup names sure ruins it at times. You need the free and convenient returns just to sort through the garbage.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Torture

Amazon is so convenient but man the perpetuation of garbage Chinese knock-offs with alphabet soup names sure ruins it at times. You need the free and convenient returns just to sort through the garbage.

They need a "brands you recognize" check box.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They need a "brands you recognize" check box.

Something like that, yeah. Not to mention that half of them are just dropshipped Teemu or Ali Express products being sold at a markup.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Locke

I've read your last few posts and I think you're absolutely right but the same problem remains.

Our infrastructure cannot handle more people.

We need more people. I will not argue that point and I never have, and I love cultural diversity.

But we dont have Educational, Housing or Medical infrastructure capable of handling such an influx of people.

Once again, we need more people, but we can't handle it sustainably. There has to be a real sustainable plan put into place for this to work. Just 'letting in more people' is going to create more problems than it solves.

People with certain skills can add to the infrastructure immediately upon arrival. For example, we need nurses and carpenters, now. As many of those people who want to come should be allowed in.

Letting in 500,000 students in a year, probably not a good idea. Unless those students are learning how to nurse and/or do carpentry and are committed to staying after their studies.

Or better yet just stop providing government funding for Canadians to study whatever they want, no matter how low in demand that field of study is.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I could see that somewhat, though zi don’t think the latter is relevant to online shopping.

Kind of goes right against his point though and supports what Mints is saying. While it’s fine and dandy that it’s easier to get a product to market, the speed at which a much cheaper version is produced and sponsored on Amazon who will ship it to your door tomorrow should be concerning.

Why is that concerning ? Unless it’s IP theft you are concerned about then I agree . But that is an issue for the creator and sellers not the purchaser / consumer

The consumer has more choice and better choice then ever before online . Sellers have more opportunity then ever to bring product to market cheaply.

The biggest issue is IP rights and quality of goods . But that isn’t just an online shopping issue . Go to any dollar store and you’ll see the same issue.

Again - do people think somehow going to physical locations to buy goods alleviated all these issues? You had 1 or 2 choices at the store and hoped it wasn’t garbage

Asking the minimum wage teenager “what do you recommend?” Haha ok -

And there’s plenty of high quality reputable sellers / websites you can hit up who give that experience - lots have “real” live chat or email to ask questions

I guess too much choice may be difficult for people but I much prefer that to limited choice