Yesterday’s post was high on emotional quotient but it was also genuine appeal from my heart. Because seeing working people make less money than beggars hurts me.
Thing is, solution proposed (buying from trinket sellers even when you don’t need any item) is not a long term sustainable solution. Suppose everybody does so then sellers start earning more than beggars, which is what we want. Then we will see more people entering into vendor business and less people entering into beggar business. Overtime, since real demand for trinkets is same, market share of each seller will go down thus reducing their income and forcing some to move out of business. Your artificial spending can go up to support larger market, but that’s not practical solution. Why should you buy more and more of what you don’t need because there are more sellers? At some point, their requirement will exceed your combined budget to trinket sellers and beggars.
I don’t know what is long term solution apart from grandiose statement of skill development and so on. But my appeal remains valid as long as few people are doing this, which is likely to be the case since I am not Mahatma Gandhi that everyone will do what I say anyway!
Breaking the Bias – Lessons from Bayesian Statistical Perspective
Equitable and fair institutions are the foundation of modern democracies. Bias, as referring to “inclination or prejudice against one perso...
-
One of the option on Orkut for describing your looks is "mirror cracking material". I always wondered if it's extreme on posi...
-
There is an old saying which goes something like this: great people discuss ideas, good people discuss incidents, ordinary people discuss pe...
-
How do you fight an enemy who is not afraid of dying and instead covets death? How do you yield or reason with with enemy whose only deman...