This is exactly right. In the long run, large numbers of people will not "support" local businesses if they feel they are making a financial sacrifice for an inferior product. And they will regard the assertion that they really ought to do this as a form of elite brow-beating. Good urban planning makes it easier for people to do what they would like to do and maybe even think they ought to do, rather than going out of their way to sacrifice for it.
Where I live, a lot of the small local businesses offer pretty low-quality experiences, aren't open consistently, and are pretty unprofessional - and seem to think it's totally fine because they are "small local businesses". It's frustrating and a bit depressing. My theory is that it's cheaper to start a business here than in the city so you get a lot of half-assers who just don't have it in their nature to strive to do it better. I end up driving to the wealthier small town to support THEIR small local businesses which at least seem to understand you need to provide a quality product or service.
In earlier times when people had more experience with local business, we understood that local businesses were crucial to survival of the city.. When most towns had a manufacturer or an oil refinery, everyone knew those workers. Now local manufacturers are relatively rare. Locals tend to be very small. So most folks don't know an employee. We're far more likely to know a Walmart associate or Amazon worker.
Some of that idea of what's easier or cheaper, especially with big chains vs local, is more in our minds than in reality.
For example, after Amazon bought Whole Foods, I started to notice prices creeping up (of course, they were creeping up everywhere). But at some point, I started directly comparing products at Whole Foods versus local co-ops or independent grocery stores and found that in nearly every case, Whole Foods cost more (sometimes much more):
Noah Smith wrote an excellent post this morning about how small businesses are integrated into the Japanese urban environment. He lived in Japan for a number of years, the description is detailed and enthusiastic.
BTW, many things that eventually became popular parts of cities and towns were originally supported by a rich patron. You could say that Sam Walton supported his first store with a great financial and personal investment before it became a popular success. There would be no Harvard College or Williamsburg, Virginia or the Smithsonian Institution without the support of rich patrons.
Residents do have a moral obligation to frequent neighborhood businesses and use public transportation. Without this proviso, I don't see how the urbanist project can succeed. However, such a moral obligation has limitations since the obligations go both ways. The service needs to be good enough to be worth supporting.
I like the question, but Addison is asking of us a very hard thing: to suggest policies that would reveal or help us discern what's "superior and worthwhile." New paradigms are not recognized in advance of their revealing. They are in the category of "Why didn't I think of that?"
There can be lots of reasons to choose a local or non-national item or service. It's my default. But "environmental impact" is not necessarily one of them. If we knew everything (God's DSGE economic model :)) that locally grown tomato may result in more CO2 emissions that the one brought in from Mexico.
This is exactly right. In the long run, large numbers of people will not "support" local businesses if they feel they are making a financial sacrifice for an inferior product. And they will regard the assertion that they really ought to do this as a form of elite brow-beating. Good urban planning makes it easier for people to do what they would like to do and maybe even think they ought to do, rather than going out of their way to sacrifice for it.
Where I live, a lot of the small local businesses offer pretty low-quality experiences, aren't open consistently, and are pretty unprofessional - and seem to think it's totally fine because they are "small local businesses". It's frustrating and a bit depressing. My theory is that it's cheaper to start a business here than in the city so you get a lot of half-assers who just don't have it in their nature to strive to do it better. I end up driving to the wealthier small town to support THEIR small local businesses which at least seem to understand you need to provide a quality product or service.
The meaning of "support" is a great thought tool.
In earlier times when people had more experience with local business, we understood that local businesses were crucial to survival of the city.. When most towns had a manufacturer or an oil refinery, everyone knew those workers. Now local manufacturers are relatively rare. Locals tend to be very small. So most folks don't know an employee. We're far more likely to know a Walmart associate or Amazon worker.
People on the other side, such as economists and globalists, do the same thing:
"Mass-monocrop tomatoes may be inferior to locally-grown, but they're so much more efficient! Don't support waste, buy smart!"
Unfortunately, many of them do have the power to take away choices they don't want people to make.
Some of that idea of what's easier or cheaper, especially with big chains vs local, is more in our minds than in reality.
For example, after Amazon bought Whole Foods, I started to notice prices creeping up (of course, they were creeping up everywhere). But at some point, I started directly comparing products at Whole Foods versus local co-ops or independent grocery stores and found that in nearly every case, Whole Foods cost more (sometimes much more):
https://heathracela.substack.com/p/divorcing-prime
Noah Smith wrote an excellent post this morning about how small businesses are integrated into the Japanese urban environment. He lived in Japan for a number of years, the description is detailed and enthusiastic.
A better way to build a downtown
It's time to learn a Japanese word: "zakkyo".
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/a-better-way-to-build-a-downtown
BTW, many things that eventually became popular parts of cities and towns were originally supported by a rich patron. You could say that Sam Walton supported his first store with a great financial and personal investment before it became a popular success. There would be no Harvard College or Williamsburg, Virginia or the Smithsonian Institution without the support of rich patrons.
Residents do have a moral obligation to frequent neighborhood businesses and use public transportation. Without this proviso, I don't see how the urbanist project can succeed. However, such a moral obligation has limitations since the obligations go both ways. The service needs to be good enough to be worth supporting.
I like the question, but Addison is asking of us a very hard thing: to suggest policies that would reveal or help us discern what's "superior and worthwhile." New paradigms are not recognized in advance of their revealing. They are in the category of "Why didn't I think of that?"
There can be lots of reasons to choose a local or non-national item or service. It's my default. But "environmental impact" is not necessarily one of them. If we knew everything (God's DSGE economic model :)) that locally grown tomato may result in more CO2 emissions that the one brought in from Mexico.
Trying to replace values and preferences with numbers in this analysis only leads to an endless argument over what to measure and how.