What is the Consumers' Role/Responsibility in "Fixing" the Economy?

[Lexicus]

Where's the master list of corporations that have been cleared for ethical consumption?

The list:

The end of the list



No, but seriously, thinking of it in terms of "cleared" or not is wrong. There's more and less ethical consumption, but there's no totally ethical consumption.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

I've stopped going to Hardees since Trump nominated their CEO to be Labor Sec and I learned what a d-bag he was.

I mean to go to Nordstroms and drop some money there to reward them for dropping Ivanka Trump's line.

(My ethical consumerism is pretty much consumed with Trump hate just now, I guess.)

But I'm totally ad hoc on these things, and I worry that some given thing I do buy probably has as bad a backstory as the thing I don't buy.

Where's the master list of corporations that have been cleared for ethical consumption?

https://grabyourwallet.org/
Some are pretty easy, some not so much.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Oh, I didn't mean just anti-Trump shopping (though thanks for that). My reference to my own anti-Trump shopping was just intended as a sign of how ad hoc is my ethical shopping.

What I want is the list (I'm sure Lexicus is right, that there isn't one) that lets me be ethical across the board in my consumerism.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Hah, yeah Lexicus is probably right. I do hear Sierra Nevada has gone to extremes to be as sustainable as possible, there's a start. Can you live off just beer for a while until we can expand the list of good ethical companies?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I probably can't live on beer alone for terribly long.

But if I try, I will, after not terribly long, likely reach a point where I no longer care terribly much about ethical consumerism. Problem solved.

 

[Traitorfish]

But my point was that "no ethical consumption under capitalism" is a way of rationalizing not even engaging in a doctrine of least-harm, which has effects whether it conflicts with our intellectual commitment to Marxism or not.

Rejecting the notion of the consumer as a political actor is foolish. The consumer is a political actor, whether we want it to be true or not. Ignoring that fact is favoring the status quo by default.

But it remains: there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. The statement is not false, it's merely inconvenient to those propounding ethical consumerism, and you can't mend a fundamentally broken framework for social change by denouncing those who reject it as utopians.

I don't disbelieve in less-unethical consumption, but I think that most of it is going to be corporate-lead, either in origin or through rapid appropriation. Ethical consumerism is a dialogue that the ruling class has with itself. And that doesn't mean that it's not less-unethical, just that it can only ever represent the horizons of the ruling-class imagination. (Notice, for example, how much emphasis is placed on a "fair wage" for workers: there is no such thing as a fair wage, because the wage-system is unfair in principle.) Boycotts may achieve immediate change, but only in the context of movements which originate outside of market relations. Shifts in consumer demand may produce small, incremental change, but these are beyond the level of individual choice except as near-passive participants. The opportunities available to address, let alone correct, global injustices are severely limited.

If we're going to spend time fretting about consumption, it's better to worry about cultivating good things you want to see in the world, rather than trying to undo its evils. Support independent bands and labels, small-batch breweries, indie games or comic studios, stuff where ever dollar tangibly constitutes to a world which is if, not closer to utopian, at least more livable.

 

[Lexicus]

The statement is not false, it's merely inconvenient to those propounding ethical consumerism

It's not inconvenient at all, because there are always degrees of unethical-ness. In fact, I would argue that oftentimes "no ethical consumption under capitalism" serves as a vacant virtue-signalling phrase, a way of saying "haha, you're too dumb to realize that you're participating in a 'dialogue the ruling class is having with itself.'"

I think that most of it is going to be corporate-lead, either in origin or through rapid appropriation. Ethical consumerism is a dialogue that the ruling class has with itself. And that doesn't mean that it's not less-unethical, just that it can only ever represent the horizons of the ruling-class imagination. (Notice, for example, how much emphasis is placed on a "fair wage" for workers: there is no such thing as a fair wage, because the wage-system is unfair in principle.)

These seem like metaphysical objections that don't matter much in practice.
Who cares if it's corporate-led? Plenty of things that have done good in the world have been 'corporate-led.'

Practically speaking, I've already conceded that ethical consumerism can't accomplish what I would like to accomplish, so I don't really want to waste time arguing about that stuff. I also disagree that the wage system is unfair in principle, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

Boycotts may achieve immediate change, but only in the context of movements which originate outside of market relations.

Labor unions originate from inside market relations, yet they have helped to effect change through boycotts many times.

If we're going to spend time fretting about consumption, it's better to worry about cultivating good things you want to see in the world, rather than trying to undo its evils. Support independent bands and labels, small-batch breweries, indie games or comic studios, stuff where ever dollar tangibly constitutes to a world which is if, not closer to utopian, at least more livable.

I try to do exactly that. And that's exactly what I talk about when I say less unethical. I don't see any functional difference between cultivating good and undoing evil. By doing one, you are doing the other, because neither has any reason for existing except defining the absence of the other.

 

[Camikaze]

Where's the master list of corporations that have been cleared for ethical consumption?

The list:

The end of the list

I don't disbelieve in less-unethical consumption, but I think that most of it is going to be corporate-lead, either in origin or through rapid appropriation.

I think it's useful to consider what is actually meant by 'corporate'. Is there something less ethical about the local small business owner deciding to operate through a corporation rather than say, a partnership? It's possible there is. But I suspect what is meant by 'corporate' is actually more to do with business size and influence, measured in some particular way.

 

[Samson]

Cell phones, for example, are put together by Chinese slave labor. If you want a cell phone then you will support slave labor.

You can buy second hand. That has to be better if not completely OK.

 

[El_Machinae]

The El_Mac answer.

Axiom 1) Everyone needs jobs. Jobs need money. And the world needs more efficiency and sustainability.
Axiom 2) The less someone charges for something, the more they need the money (unless they're being subsidized).

Investments (in the economic sense, not colloquial)

• Buy tools as cheap as you can. "Tools" are anything that allow you to produce more than the counter-factual or allow you to cut costs in the longrun. Schooling. The first 1800 calories in a day. The first $8k of vehicle. Credit. Insulation for your home repairs. A tooth filling now so that you can avoid a root-canal later.
• You'll note that these dollars are going to provide employment somewhere. But, more importantly, this means that you will have more money later AND now. So, while you're mulling wisdom about how to be more effective consumer, you will have a greater amount of ability to enact your will.
• If you spend the savings purely locally, you then offset whatever local 'damage' you caused by outsourcing. You can also donate the savings locally in a way that makes your locale more long-term competitive.

Luxury

• Spend your luxury dollars ethically and/or locally. Hell, treat it as social signaling if you want. Pay your externalities. When it comes to 'buying tools', then it's really difficult to act with maximum morality. You need to eat. You need to work. You need to cut your heating costs. But not with your luxury goods. It's literally a moral issue.
• You don't need to completely source your luxury goods perfectly. It's impossible. So don't. But just remember that you're getting a significant discount on any goods that have an ethical component being violated.

Buy offsets

• There will be a difference between what you actually spend on any specific luxury and what the luxury should cost. What does the average person do? They buy more luxury goods (or increase their savings). And then go all slacktivist and 'like' a few socially conscious posts on Facebook. That's not the way the world gets better. Here's the thing, in some metrics, human suffering is fungible and so are dollars. Every unethical dollar you spend is creating 'X' amount of suffering. If you spend your discount on things that are more cost-effective than X then you're actually decreasing the net suffering in the world. Now, depending on your partisan instincts, you might value local suffering more than distant suffering, and so donate to the food bank to cover the fact that you got a $400 subsidy on your iPhone. Whatever. That can be hashed out later. The important thing is that people stop putting the $400 they saved into another luxury good that also has externalities that discount it. Blood diamonds and Thailand bondage porn or whatever. There are better and worse ways of spending your subsidy.
  
• Ratchet upwards. Here's the biggest. Your offset spending can always be spent better. So hey, you start at the foodbank. Then you ratchet upwards from there. Always looking for the greatest bang-for-the-buck in 'making the world better'. And these dollars come from your savings on luxuries. They weren't your dollars to begin with. The things you were bought was subsidized with pain.

Unfortunately as a consumer, deciding to buy or not buy a product doesn't make any difference at all.

The only power we really have as consumers is to raise awareness of an issue.

This is literally incorrect along all the dimensions that make the world worse than it needs to be. Your most powerful effect is as a consumer. If you happen to have the charisma to sway people, you've got an advantage that you shouldn't blow, absolutely. But your most guaranteed source of power? As a consumer. As a voter, you get to cast one choice for 3 imperfect candidates every few years. As an advocate, you literally cannot expect people to not walk the walk you won't walk. Especially when you're middle-income.

People will do what they're paid to do. And only a handful of people get paid as much as they would elsewhere actually making the world a better place. Most people trying to do good things with their employment give a massive discount. You want people to do better things? Pay them to.

As for 'swaying' people. Unlikely at the mean, median, or mode. Of all the charity dollars you've given in the last year (outside of tipping), how many greater dollars have you leveraged by suasion? Some people can do good suasion. Most can't.

The majority of your power is as a consumer.

Always shop the local guys you want to stay in business even if they cost more. Walmart might not notice, but they do. Their kids go to the same schools as yours. That's a Farm Dad-ism. He keeps getting smarter the older I get.

It's not bad. "Shopping local" means you're gunning for the multiplier effect. It's how you reduce the odds or intensity of a local recession. And there absolutely is value in knowing you're helping a community stay afloat.

I go one-up, since I am in Canada. When I use my debit instead of my VISA, I literally give the merchant 4x more money than I 'lose' in lost points. That's an incredible amount of multiplier on my spent-dollar. I treat it like a 3% 'tip' that only costs me 0.7%.

The appropriate response is not to ask poor people to make financially unsound decisions but to put Apple's executives in jail for procuring iPhones from Chinese suppliers at prices that make it certain those suppliers will use slave labor.

I keep two minds on this one. The first is poor people need jobs more. So, if someone is working at a discount, then I have to ask about whether providing that person employment will help them. Well, actually just one mind. I have zero problems with forcing Canadian companies to only source labour and products from places that have certified humanitarian standards. Canada's a small player, so we'd need some backup. As a consumer, I use my 'tool/luxury' metric above to offset my subsidy. As a voter, I'd vote to reduce my subsidy. But, lol, like that option will ever come up. Ergo, I depend on my personal behavior.

But watch the developing world scramble once their 'race to the bottom' includes "the place that gives lunch breaks". They'll happily do it to gain access to our markets. More than happily, since (obviously) their citizenry will be happier. No government is going to mind writing pro-humane legislation to increase their competitiveness.

Oh, I didn't mean just anti-Trump shopping (though thanks for that). My reference to my own anti-Trump shopping was just intended as a sign of how ad hoc is my ethical shopping.

What I want is the list (I'm sure Lexicus is right, that there isn't one) that lets me be ethical across the board in my consumerism.

MSC for fish is the one I know about most. The trick is to ratchet upwards. You can only know what you know. And you control your own curiosity.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Very thoughtful answer, El Mac. Thank you for laying it out in such detail.

 

[Farm Boy]

You know the sound when a wooden bat really gets hold of a fastball? Slow it down and you get that. At least a little bit.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've heard Tim refer to it as a "Home Run" whatever that means...

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, now we're talking about two different things. The thing you're talking about is running around and cheering and Harry Carey slurring in blissful giddiness. This describes a transfer of energy.

 

[civvver]

Saying one customer doesn't make a difference is like saying one vote in our political elections doesn't make a difference. It's true but you should still vote anyway.

Walmart's I think it's shown pretty conclusively that they reduce local economies. I only found like 1 paper saying they don't cus of the amount of people they employ. Almost all others say they pay too little and don't replace enough jobs lost.

https://journalistsresource.org/stu...g-box-retailers-employment-wages-crime-health

But cars is very different. For example Toyota Camry and Honda Civic are assembled in the US (Some Civics in canada I think) and contain a lot of us part content, over 65% I read on the civic. Toyota camry is more american made than american brands! For one a large part of a car's cost is transportation. It costs a ton of money to make a car in Japan or China and ship it here. Mexico though? Not so much as they can just drive them across the border. So it all depends.

But also when you buy a car it's usually local so you're support those local jobs too, and where you get it serviced etc. So when people say oh buy Ford cus it's American, in reality you're supporting the Ford company over maybe Honda or Toyota, but you might not necessarily be supporting the most American or even local workers.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/15-cars-with-the-most-north-american-made-parts/

 

[warpus]

. Your most powerful effect is as a consumer.

Large groups of consumers all working together towards the same goal - powerful

One consumer - powerless

These large corporations (and even small ones) rely on the economies of scale. One person doing something somewhere doesn't affect them at all. It's patterns in the behaviours of millions is what does.

 

[Bamspeedy]

To keep

Saying one customer doesn't make a difference is like saying one vote in our political elections doesn't make a difference. It's true but you should still vote anyway.

Walmart's I think it's shown pretty conclusively that they reduce local economies. I only found like 1 paper saying they don't cus of the amount of people they employ. Almost all others say they pay too little and don't replace enough jobs lost.

https://journalistsresource.org/stu...g-box-retailers-employment-wages-crime-health

But cars is very different. For example Toyota Camry and Honda Civic are assembled in the US (Some Civics in canada I think) and contain a lot of us part content, over 65% I read on the civic. Toyota camry is more american made than american brands! For one a large part of a car's cost is transportation. It costs a ton of money to make a car in Japan or China and ship it here. Mexico though? Not so much as they can just drive them across the border. So it all depends.

But also when you buy a car it's usually local so you're support those local jobs too, and where you get it serviced etc. So when people say oh buy Ford cus it's American, in reality you're supporting the Ford company over maybe Honda or Toyota, but you might not necessarily be supporting the most American or even local workers.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/15-cars-with-the-most-north-american-made-parts/

The mom and pop stores didn't have workers, or when they did, they paid them minimum wage or just above it. So about the same (not all walmarts are the same, some pay more than other, it depends on the labor market and the management of that store).
Raises=both WM and mom and pop gave raises. WM is typically 90 days, 6 months, 1 year, etc. Mom and pop is whenever they want to (which may be never, 1 year, 5 years, who knows. And you can bet it isn't always done 'fairly')
Promotion=At the mom and pop you have to wait for someone to die basically.
Benefits=Most mom and pops don't offer any. When they are big enough to offer them then they aren't much different than what WM has to offer.
So the losers are the owners of the mom and pop shops, unless they can get into a business that is a little more niche than what WM has to offer.

One reason car manufacturing is still around in the US is because of the shift from $20+/hour union jobs in Michigan building cars, it is now $10/hour unsafe jobs in Alabama making them. But would Alabama rather see them gone? Nope, $10/hour is better than nothing. Just like a chinese worker making $2/hour is a better job than when he was earning $0.50/hour.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...oom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs

 

[El_Machinae]

Large groups of consumers all working together towards the same goal - powerful

One consumer - powerless

These large corporations (and even small ones) rely on the economies of scale. One person doing something somewhere doesn't affect them at all. It's patterns in the behaviours of millions is what does.

You're repeating your thesis. My chastisement is that you're not only perpetuating the ills your dollars buy, but that your 'solution' (suasion) is both weaker than your consumption dollar AND likely to be totally ineffective if you can't even convince yourself.

You're wrong. Wildly so.

 

[warpus]

You're repeating your thesis. My chastisement is that you're not only perpetuating the ills your dollars buy, but that your 'solution' (suasion) is both weaker than your consumption dollar AND likely to be totally ineffective if you can't even convince yourself.

You're wrong. Wildly so.

Perhaps I don't understand your argument here, because.. okay. Answer this. How could you modify the behaviour of.. let's say McDonald's? As a single consumer?

How do you put your power into action and alter their behaviour?

My suggestion is that you have no such power to modify their behaviour at all, unless you convince a lot of other consumers to join you. They won't care if you stop shopping there, it doesn't affect them to lose 1 customer. They rely on millions of people acting as 1 unit. Much like a human is made of a lot of individual cells. Losing 1 cell is not going to be a big deal at all, it happens all the time. It doesn't affect the organism as a whole at all.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Perhaps I don't understand your argument here, because.. okay. Answer this. How could you modify the behaviour of.. let's say McDonald's? As a single consumer?

How do you put your power into action and alter their behaviour?

My suggestion is that you have no such power to modify their behaviour at all, unless you convince a lot of other consumers to join you. They won't care if you stop shopping there, it doesn't affect them to lose 1 customer. They rely on millions of people acting as 1 unit. Much like a human is made of a lot of individual cells. Losing 1 cell is not going to be a big deal at all, it happens all the time. It doesn't affect the organism as a whole at all.

Which is exactly why its discussed on social media and forums like this, so it's not just one person.