The trend of fast fashion (buying clothes just to wear them a few times) has nothing to do with Amazon though. It is a direct result of our modern society. We now have the luxary to afford more then we actually need to survive so we strive to have more and more. This is really fused by the fashion industry and advertising companies rather then AI and automation. Fast fashion has been practiced long before we really had automation, and while I believe automation will drive down the prices (and thus increase the demand), the important advantage is fewer people who do jobs.
Wether we use automatiom for that or not will only have a marginal difference. People buy so many clothes because they can (they are relatively cheap now compared to other expenses in our lives).
Lastly, I believe Amazon (or shipping in general) actually brings down the carbon footprint. If you think about it, buying a new cable for me is either: drive about 9 miles to a mall to buy a single cable and drive 9 miles back or shipping it to my address which is bundled with many other and the driver only needs to drive an extra mile for me (at most) instead of 18. sure there is more packaging but there is also a lot of behind the scenes packaging for “in-store” items. Maybe not as much but I believe, in almost all cases, the carbon footprint for driving all the way to the mall for picking up a cubic feet and 1 pound of materials is rather wasteful.
>I believe Amazon (or shipping in general) actually brings down the carbon footprint. [...] drive about 9 miles to a mall to buy a single cable and drive 9 miles back or shipping it to my address
Sure, home delivery is probably a more efficient way to consume, but the argument is that people end up consuming more as a result of the convenience. If buying a new cable means you have to drive to the store, maybe you decide you don't need it right now.
But the same agreement can also be applied to the opposite. Since Amazon deliveries often take one to two days (assuming you have prime) you might reconsider if you really need that item.
>If buying a new cable means you have to drive to the store, maybe you decide you don't need it right now.
Perhaps. But it's also possible I'll go to the store and walk out with ten things I don't really need either on impulse buys or because going to the store is a hassle and I want to make sure I don't have to go back.
When it's difficult for me to get to a store (because I don't have a car anymore), I either:
- Buy stuff I don't really need when I do rent a car/Uber to visit that store, just in case I need it later.
- Vastly overpay for the same item at the ultra-luxury version of the store located on the ultra-luxury walkable land near my office or a public transit station. (The markup on basic goods for "people who live here don't have cars so what else are they gonna do, starve?" is insane).
>The trend of fast fashion (buying clothes just to wear them a few times) has nothing to do with Amazon though. It is a direct result of our modern society.
It's a direct result of clothing deflation (clothing deflation is 2nd only to electronics deflation).
That in turn, is a direct result of pushing manufacturing to the cheapest 3rd world sweatshops (e.g. Bangladesh & Vietnam), not automation.
TBH, that's pretty much automation. From the point of view of businesses, those workers in 3rd world sweatshops are nothing more than cheap-ass protein robots that inhabit the area.
It's better for them if we all believe metal and plastic robots are doing those jobs. If people believe that those jobs migrated overseas because of trade agreements they might start to get dangerous ideas that threaten their bottom line.
Plus, the logistics operation that makes it economically feasible to make cheap stuff half the world way from it where is actually sold is pretty much automated.
Yeah, we buy new stuff, even if we're not super much into fashion. Going to a job interview? It's a cool startup, so I don't have to wear a suit but I need clothes that don't look like rags. Oh, looking for an apartment? The landlord probably doesn't want his property to look as worn out as this person's clothes.
So yeah, we need to buy new clothes. And to not spend too much money it's best to buy cheap stuff, right? In fact the more is expensive stuff not only lasts longer but it also looks non-embarrassing in 5 years. Actually I once read that the french (the epicentre of fashion) have only very few clothes.
Actually a year ago or so I watched a documentary about minimalism. So there are people who have like 30 (!!!!) things. Of course they are moderate but there's also a nice technique: writing down the stuff you want to buy on a list. You look at the list one month later and if you still need it, you gonna buy it. Wanna save CO2? You can go every one or two months to the mall and buy the stuff from your list. This also saves annoying returns, buying stuff that instantly breaks because you never had it in your hands etc etc...
> And to not spend too much money it's best to buy cheap stuff, right? In fact the more is expensive stuff not only lasts longer but it also looks non-embarrassing in 5 years.
In my experience yes, it's best to buy cheap clothes. Brands know this reasoning, and so expensive clothes (and shoes) tend to be of similar quality as the cheap ones. You pay premium for the brand.
That, or I'm such a special person that I can wear down any trousers or shoes in half a year, one year tops, regardless of the price.
The clothes I buy are on the expensive side, but they last me a long time. The trick is to avoid popular, fashionable brands, and go for utility brands instead. I own a pair of hiking pants I bought from REI nine years ago and to this they day are my favorite pair.
I'm not. I'm doubting the availability of quality clothes. Moreover, my main point is that the price is not a reliable proxy for quality, and I don't know of any other way I could tell between good and crappy wear. They all look the same to me.
Understood. I'll throw out one: Allen Edmunds shoes. They are the only shoes I have (not counting tennis shoes), and all cost $300-400 each. The oldest pair I have is 27 years old and still look good. The youngest pair I have is about 5 years old.
They are classic American shoes, solid build, excellent leather. Unlike fancy Italian shoes, they last forever with care and maintenance.
I will never, ever, buy another brand of shoes. And I really don't care how much they cost because they are clearly worth it.
I have to say, it's fun getting compliments on shoes and then seeing the look on someone's face when they hear the shoes are a quarter century old. :)
Speak for yourself, I bike to the store when I need stuff. I merely pointed out fast fashion because the author uses it as an example of why the Luddites complaining were wrong about the loom and in doing so neglects the negative effects of technology in the clothing industry.
> ..We now have the luxary to afford more then we actually need to survive so we strive to have more and more.
I've come to the conclusion that this is primary issue with a establishing a universal income.
Providing everyone with a means to buy essentials for life would insist that no one overbuys -- which would have the effect of inflating market prices and eliminate any benefits imagined from having such an income.
My own suspicion is that UBI would give policymakers a mighty political carrot-and-stick; debating the morality of certain spending habits, etc., and slowly de-universalizing UBI into something with strings attached.
I prefer the idea of creating our own value for trade, if we could iron out some of the kinks in the system we have already.
I think we will transition over to new more sustainable models. Capitalism just causes too much damage and unintended consequences when it uses the speed and scale the tech sector provides. Just look at the number of followers of that subreddit and the speed at which it is growing.
But I got rich starting a high-frequency alt-coin hedge fund because I created value in the sense that I found a way to enrich myself. Now I'm going to pay these politicians comparatively small amounts (but far above what you could afford to stop me) to protect my interests.
> But I got rich starting a high-frequency alt-coin hedge fund because I created value in the sense that I found a way to enrich myself.
Here's the crux of the problem. You created value in terms of market economy. That doesn't mean you created any value in terms of human society, or how people generally understand this world.
Hell, in your particular example it's quite easy to argue that alt-coins (if proof-of-work-based) generate lots of negative value (by wasting ungodly amounts of energy), and whether or not HFT is helpful to the stability of the economy is debatable.
You bet, the system as it is needs real reform! My previous post uses the word "kinks" and I don't mean to minimize the problem we have today. Old capitalist thinking seems out of date, and this does feel like late-stage.
This is so out of base with common economics I don't even know where to begin.
Thus, I suggest you read a microeconomic textbook to get some more context on how government wide economic policies (like UBI) will have on individuals.
I'm not up to speed with the latest highfalutin micro economic theories but it seems to me that we already have a universal basic income of $0.00 and a basic cost of goods. Please explain how raising the UBI to, let's say $30K, won't just raise the basic cost of goods by the same percentage, establishing a new equilibrium that is essentially the same as we have now.
Wether we use automatiom for that or not will only have a marginal difference. People buy so many clothes because they can (they are relatively cheap now compared to other expenses in our lives).
Lastly, I believe Amazon (or shipping in general) actually brings down the carbon footprint. If you think about it, buying a new cable for me is either: drive about 9 miles to a mall to buy a single cable and drive 9 miles back or shipping it to my address which is bundled with many other and the driver only needs to drive an extra mile for me (at most) instead of 18. sure there is more packaging but there is also a lot of behind the scenes packaging for “in-store” items. Maybe not as much but I believe, in almost all cases, the carbon footprint for driving all the way to the mall for picking up a cubic feet and 1 pound of materials is rather wasteful.