SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The entire big box economy is a big honking subsidy to people with cars living in the suburbs by the poor, the singles, the seniors, the urban, the cyclists.
It only works because of the highways and the parking lots and the infrastructure paid for by everyone (road taxes do not cover the cost of the roads) and enjoyed by the drivers. The companies charge twice as much for small packages as big ones because they can; the purchasers without cars and access to the big boxes, the ability to drive between the Walmart and the Costco and the Price Club, don't have a choice.
Read on for Treehugger's reasons. Is bulk buying bad after all?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Does Buying in Bulk Save Money, or is it a False Economy?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 111 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Monday September 25 2017, @11:03PM (2 children)
It sounds like the author of the article needs to understand
the difference between what we can and cannot change in our
daily lives. If the only way for you to make a living is to work somewhere
in a suburb where you need a car, then buying bulk might make sense.
Anything can be done badly. Buying fresh garlic by the pallet is probably
not a good idea. Buying toilet paper in bulk is probably a good idea.
Yeah, poor people can't do it. They can't do a lot of other things either.
That's the definition of poor.
Do you know what a city with dense housing
and good public transit is? It's buildings and transit bought in bulk.
Efficiency is good, even if it exists within a larger framework
that isn't efficient. The "green" folks are right to address issues with
that larger framework. I think it makes less sense to criticize practices
that help us cope within that framework. If the framework becomes
more efficient, these processes will go away all by themselves without
them being addressed.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 25 2017, @11:30PM
On the other side, it's increased transportation and storage cost for food, higher concentration of waste to treat/dispose, lack of greenery/heat-islands, increased risks of transmissible epidemics (jumping into flu-season on another one sneezing on you in the public transport?), social issues (homelessness, increased level of everyday stress), military strategy considerations (strategic bombing of Hamburg), etc.
Not saying that the cities are bad, I'm saying there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @02:03AM
Challenge accepted! Here, hold my beer.