Monopolies again, and why they are un-Epicurean

Posted by on

Contrary to impressions outside the US America is a very expensive country. Mobile phones, for instance cost on average $100 a month, twice the cost of a similar service in France and Germany.  Healthcare costs are huge. I recently spent ten minutes with a foot doctor for correcting an in-growing toenail, billed at $473.00   Pharmaceuticals can cost twice as much in the US than they do in Europe.  Investment in the US has been falling for 20 years.  Because prices are so high wages buy less. The income of workers, unless they can borrow (and borrowing on credit cards is massive), gets squeezed in real terms while those at the top get paid more and more.  Inequality is growing  to unsupportable levels.  Even life expectancy is falling; suicides are growing in number.

The root cause, many believe, is the huge cost of American elections.  Corporations back candidates generously, but expect a quid pro quo, which means protection from competition and an astonishing hands-off policy on acquisitions and mergers.

Some years ago I was introduced to a neighbour, who worked for the government on mergers and acquisitions.  I was a bit cheeky on a first meeting and told him I thought the scale of merger activity was really bad for the country, and I wished him luck in scaling it back.  Well, if looks could kill!  He left me in no doubt that his job was to encourage mergers! And that was a under Obama!

So , having invested in Candidate X every company wants its pound of flesh, and generally gets the green light. The result is a skewed economy and a less well off population in dire financial situations – less security, more hours, lower real wages, chronic anxiety and, a rising tide of desperation and suicide.

Epicurus, were he alive today, might well comment, “That’s politics for you. Stay away from them”.  I would reply, “But it is not just business as usual.  It’s in process of making  America a second class power.  But everyone looks the other way, as they do on the scary subject of global climate change”.

 

Home delivery: sign of our divided times

Posted by on

“The tyranny of home delivery is creating a new class division. There are those who deliver the boxes and those who get the boxes.  There are now millions employed delivering more stuff to more people more quickly than ever before.  Wages and work conditions are rock bottom .  Insecurity, stress exploitation and alienation are sky high.

“Jeff Bezos, Amazon boss, is now the richest man on the planet, a fortune built on the labour of the boxetariat.  Eliminating the last mile of the supply chain has become the new road to riches for the few and the road to exhaustion for the many.

“Whether all this it will, in time, become the new foundation for worker activism and effective organising for better working conditions is both a challenge and an opportunity.”   (Letter to The Guardian from Stewart Sweeney, Adelaide, South Australia).

My response:  Yes, you can argue that it’s exploitation.  Yes, Amazon pays little tax anywhere, leaving that chore to us.  And yes, Bezos is reported, on top of all that, (correctly or not) to give nothing to charity (at all??).  If true, not an admirable man, unless you are an out-of-sight right-winger.  Epicurus spent a lot of time warning us about the vain pursuit of wealth and power that never results in happiness.

On the other hand, at least until Amazon blatantly exploits its monopoly position, it is convenient, competitive in price, and easy to use. No driving to a mall, wasting half a day, and losing one’s parking spot.  I use Amazon, selfishly, well aware that I am helping create a possibly hideous monopoly and well aware of the moral dilemma.  Yet another issue  to beat oneself up about!  But, on the other hand, I spend the time saved in pleasurable activities.  Epicurus would approve of that

“Discontinued” : some rhymed verse

Posted by on

The Japanese may have devised the idea;
I refer to their crass ”innovation”
Where products have barely the life of a year.
Oh, the speed from launch to truncation!
Every few months a new model is born – –
New colour, new size, or new speed – –
And the prospect of spares for a gadget that’s old
In what seems like a flash can recede.

Planned obsolescence is now universal.
For consumers it’s antipathetic.
What once just applied to recording machines
Is now in the realm of cosmetics.
My wife combs the shops for the lipstick she likes,
Dodging the so-called “new” sprays,
And at last she discovers the colour she thinks
Will last her the rest of her days.

The trick is to buy all stock she can find,
And store it away as if gold.
For try to return in six months and she’ll find
That the colour is no longer sold.
“No, Madam,” they tell her, as if to a child,
“That shade is no longer in fashion.
Young ladies wear lipstick in silver and white.
This season complexions are ashen.”

The same for men’s shorts. For years I have worn
Light cotton that’s comfy and dapper.
Millions were sold, they looked good, but oh, no!
In the new styles I look like a rapper.
They’ve got it all wrong, for no youngster who’s cool
Would be seen in Marks*, dead or alive.
Nonetheless, we’re resigned to be once more de-signed;
It’s us middle-aged men they deprive.

Sauces and hi-fis and cleaners and shoes,
You can barely buy anything twice.
We like the familiar, the tried and the true,
It’s not just a question of price.
This all helps the salesman – – new models to sell!
But consumers? Oh, dear, here we go,
Fruitlessly searching for something again
We had settled on ages ago.

So who’s going to set up a sensible website
Where it’s no longer Autumn or Spring,
Where they stock the right colour, or flavour, or size,
And where changing the range isn’t King?
Where the goods you have known for a decade or so,
That the shops are unwilling to sell,
Are there, reassuring and ready to buy,
And sent to the house where you dwell.

Who’s going to set up a sensible website
To sell last year’s colour of paint,
And wallpaper lately removed from the market,
To replace the areas gone faint?
The margins on cost will be bigger and better;
Convenience only would rule!
I reckon he’ll end up rich as old Croesus,
While the marketing boys play the fool.

* Marks & Spencer, the traditional mid-budget clothes store in England.

 

An ethical dilemma: taking advantage of generous guarantees

Posted by on

“I do a lot of online shopping. I try to stick with the merchants that offer free two-way shipping and unlimited return policies (e.g., any time, any condition, no questions asked). I often order items in three sizes and four colors and return most of them. I keep something for a year or more and then decide I don’t want it, often after I’ve used it.

“Some people have told me that what I’m doing is disgraceful, but I don’t see why. The stores make a big deal promoting these policies, and if they didn’t offer them, I wouldn’t shop there. Am I missing something? I’m becoming ashamed to tell anyone what I do, but I can’t resist getting my money back if I can’t tell in advance what the colors or cut will look like on me in real life, or if I will no longer want something after I discover it forgotten in my closet.

—Deliver Me not Evil

 Dear Deliver,

You’re right—with a caveat. If merchants tout a return-any-time-for-any-reason policy and offer to pick up the shipping charges in both directions, you’re certainly entitled to take advantage of that. As you point out, this policy brings these companies business that you (and others) otherwise might not give them (unless no one had such a policy—but that’s not the case at this time). The organizations must have calculated that they make more money and earn good will eating the cost of postage and returned goods than they would if they required customers to pay for shipping or be stuck with unwanted items. They build those costs into their prices, and if it isn’t working out for them, they increase the prices or reduce the benefits (e.g., switch to limited-time or unused return policies, or charge for shipping).

The caveat: It’s in your own interest (as well as the companies’) not to take excessive advantage of this “generosity.” If you return items unused and promptly, they can be resold and the companies have only lost the cost of shipping and restocking—plus the environmental costs of sending them back and forth. But if you hang onto things for years, or use them and then return them, that will be a loss to the seller. Although some items may get donated to people who are grateful to have them, many will just end up in landfills.

Another thing: thanks to modern technology, companies are keeping track of  our buying habits, including our returns. If yours get to the point of being deemed abusive, companies may cut you off. It’s also possible that you might be a “returnaholic.” If that’s you, seek professional help. But if you’re just milking the system, be careful not to wear out the cow or get kicked.

My comment:  From time to time we all have ethical issues that pose dilemmas.  I thought readers might like to see an answer to one from Joan Reisman-Brill,  who responds in The Humanist magazine to those who have ethical problems.  Questions  to The Humanist Dilemma at dilemma@thehumanist.com (subject line: Humanist Dilemma.  All inquiries confidential)

 

Boeing again: crashes and lousy management

Posted by on

Boeing timeline:

  • 29 October 2018: A 737 Max 8 operated by Lion Air crashes after leaving Indonesia, killing all 189 people on board
  • 31 January 2019: Boeing reports an order of 5,011 Max planes from 79 customers
  • 10 March 2019: A 737 Max 8 operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashes, killing all 157 people on board
  • 14 March 2019: Boeing grounds entire 737 Max aircraft fleet

Boeing pushed back determinedly against the aviation regulator’s calls for a certain aspect of simulator training, which would have led to higher costs for its customers, making its aircraft less attractive.  Documents also appear to show problems with the simulators being discussed.

In February 2018, a Boeing worker asked a colleague: “Would you put your family on a Max simulator-trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.”   “No,” came the reply.   One unnamed employee wrote in an exchange of instant messages in April 2017: “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys.”

“I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to Max,” Boeing’s 737 chief technical pilot at the time, Mark Forkner, said in a March 2017 email.  Boeing will not allow that to happen. We’ll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement.”

In other emails and instant messages, employees spoke of their frustration with the company’s culture, complaining about the drive to find the cheapest suppliers and “impossible schedules”.

“I don’t know how to fix these things… it’s systemic. It’s culture. It’s the fact we have a senior leadership team that understand very little about the business and yet are driving us to certain objectives,” said an employee in an email dated June 2018.

And in a May 2018 message, an unnamed Boeing employee said: “I still haven’t been forgiven by God for the covering up I did last year.”. Without citing what was covered up, the employee added: “Can’t do it one more time, the pearly gates will be closed.”

US House transportation committee chairman Peter DeFazio – who has been investigating the 737 Max – said the communications “show a co-ordinated effort dating back to the earliest days of the 737 Max programme to conceal critical information from regulators and the public”.

The comment from the FAA , which is the regulator, was,  “The tone and content of some of the language contained in the documents is disappointing“.  (Washington Post)

Disappointing!  This system isn’t working. It is corrupt.  There are too many Boeings around, getting away with unsafe and unlawful stuff because they have multiple lobbyists and plentiful cash to support pliant congressmen.  Disappointing , indeed!