Re: Let’s All Boycott Home Depot
Posted: Tue July 09, 2019 4:06 pm
Anyway I've been boycotting Wayfair for the last three years since I don't need any new furniture so it's nice to see this become a virtue.
If i were to shop locally my choices would be: WalMart and furniture and fur stores that sell furniture for $10M mansions.B wrote:Fuck if I know the right answer here.
I'm supposed to shop local, but for me that means Fitch's Lumber in Carrboro. They're prices aren't a little bit more than Lowe's/Home Depot. I priced out a front door, and it was 4 god damned times more expensive. Not to mention, they close at noon on Saturday and don't open at all on Sunday.
What is a working family with limited disposable income supposed to do?
Hasten the revolution?B wrote:Fuck if I know the right answer here.
I'm supposed to shop local, but for me that means Fitch's Lumber in Carrboro. They're prices aren't a little bit more than Lowe's/Home Depot. I priced out a front door, and it was 4 god damned times more expensive. Not to mention, they close at noon on Saturday and don't open at all on Sunday.
What is a working family with limited disposable income supposed to do?
I had never even heard of Wayfair until this controversy.Mickey wrote:Anyway I've been boycotting Wayfair for the last three years since I don't need any new furniture so it's nice to see this become a virtue.
This might be a good opportunity to bring up the question of whether shopping local is indeed virtuous.B wrote:Fuck if I know the right answer here.
I'm supposed to shop local, but for me that means Fitch's Lumber in Carrboro. They're prices aren't a little bit more than Lowe's/Home Depot. I priced out a front door, and it was 4 god damned times more expensive. Not to mention, they close at noon on Saturday and don't open at all on Sunday.
What is a working family with limited disposable income supposed to do?
On the other hand, consumer behavior/pressure seems to have been more successful influencing businesses in things like gun/ammo policies, use of plastics, etc., than voters have been trying to accomplish those same goals.Mickey wrote:I think situations like that, and the ones being invoked more broadly here, show the limits of individual consumer behavior as a means to redress broader structural concerns. Which is precisely why a certain segment of the political spectrum leans so heavily on "vote with your dollar" and ignores that this just isn't an option for a big swath of the country (to say nothing of its lack of efficacy).
Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I agree but I'm also not sure we're thinking of the same things. In the first place, while I certainly would admit that gun control legislation has been a spectacular failure, a number of the plastic bans have been enforced legislatively (ie LA's banning of the plastic bag) or come about through agitation rather than consumer economic action. I'm sure there are counter examples but in my mind restaurants getting rid of straws are responding to public pressure--or rather, that there are very few people refusing to go to shake shack until they get rid of straws. In the second place, and perhaps more importantly, I would distinguish between consumer pressure and consumer behavior. I think there's a difference between drumming up mass support and "voting with your dollar" as an atomized subject. These two things overlap of course but I see things like "shop local" more on the side of the latter, and also (resultingly) more ineffective.4/5 wrote:On the other hand, consumer behavior/pressure seems to have been more successful influencing businesses in things like gun/ammo policies, use of plastics, etc., than voters have been trying to accomplish those same goals.Mickey wrote:I think situations like that, and the ones being invoked more broadly here, show the limits of individual consumer behavior as a means to redress broader structural concerns. Which is precisely why a certain segment of the political spectrum leans so heavily on "vote with your dollar" and ignores that this just isn't an option for a big swath of the country (to say nothing of its lack of efficacy).
I agree that there's a difference between consumer pressure and consumer behavior, so if we're talking only about consumer behavior, then you're right. My point is that businesses are often (certainly not always) more responsive to "the people" than governments often (certainly not always) are. Some states and local governments have absolutely responded legislatively to public pressure on those issues, but whereas virtually nothing has happened at the national level or huge swaths of Red States, places like Starbucks, Walmart, and Dick's have responded by not using plastic straws, or raising age requirements above what some states require or refusing to sell certain types of weapons.Mickey wrote:Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I agree but I'm also not sure we're thinking of the same things. In the first place, while I certainly would admit that gun control legislation has been a spectacular failure, a number of the plastic bans have been enforced legislatively (ie LA's banning of the plastic bag) or come about through agitation rather than consumer economic action. I'm sure there are counter examples but in my mind restaurants getting rid of straws are responding to public pressure--or rather, that there are very few people refusing to go to shake shack until they get rid of straws. In the second place, and perhaps more importantly, I would distinguish between consumer pressure and consumer behavior. I think there's a difference between drumming up mass support and "voting with your dollar" as an atomized subject. These two things overlap of course but I see things like "shop local" more on the side of the latter, and also (resultingly) more ineffective.4/5 wrote:On the other hand, consumer behavior/pressure seems to have been more successful influencing businesses in things like gun/ammo policies, use of plastics, etc., than voters have been trying to accomplish those same goals.Mickey wrote:I think situations like that, and the ones being invoked more broadly here, show the limits of individual consumer behavior as a means to redress broader structural concerns. Which is precisely why a certain segment of the political spectrum leans so heavily on "vote with your dollar" and ignores that this just isn't an option for a big swath of the country (to say nothing of its lack of efficacy).
Nothing to add here, just want to say that this is a great exchange, which highlights a real tension I don't think is talked about enough. Markets do seem the best, most efficient way to enact change, but the playing field is never going to be level.4/5 wrote:I agree that there's a difference between consumer pressure and consumer behavior, so if we're talking only about consumer behavior, then you're right. My point is that businesses are often (certainly not always) more responsive to "the people" than governments often (certainly not always) are. Some states and local governments have absolutely responded legislatively to public pressure on those issues, but whereas virtually nothing has happened at the national level or huge swaths of Red States, places like Starbucks, Walmart, and Dick's have responded by not using plastic straws, or raising age requirements above what some states require or refusing to sell certain types of weapons.Mickey wrote:Could you be more specific? I'm not sure I agree but I'm also not sure we're thinking of the same things. In the first place, while I certainly would admit that gun control legislation has been a spectacular failure, a number of the plastic bans have been enforced legislatively (ie LA's banning of the plastic bag) or come about through agitation rather than consumer economic action. I'm sure there are counter examples but in my mind restaurants getting rid of straws are responding to public pressure--or rather, that there are very few people refusing to go to shake shack until they get rid of straws. In the second place, and perhaps more importantly, I would distinguish between consumer pressure and consumer behavior. I think there's a difference between drumming up mass support and "voting with your dollar" as an atomized subject. These two things overlap of course but I see things like "shop local" more on the side of the latter, and also (resultingly) more ineffective.4/5 wrote:On the other hand, consumer behavior/pressure seems to have been more successful influencing businesses in things like gun/ammo policies, use of plastics, etc., than voters have been trying to accomplish those same goals.Mickey wrote:I think situations like that, and the ones being invoked more broadly here, show the limits of individual consumer behavior as a means to redress broader structural concerns. Which is precisely why a certain segment of the political spectrum leans so heavily on "vote with your dollar" and ignores that this just isn't an option for a big swath of the country (to say nothing of its lack of efficacy).
Looking back at your post that I replied to originally, I realize this isn't what you were talking about, but my point is that businesses are responsive to social pressure, allowing people to be successful addressing "broader structural concerns" via this route, perhaps more than they are by casting a few votes every couple of years.