2020年5月19日 星期二

On Tech: A little e-commerce has big ripples

Online shopping has changed our behavior, reordered the nature of work and challenged our cities.

A little e-commerce has big ripples

Mark Pernice

Online shopping is not as big a deal as you think, and it’s a much bigger deal than you think.

In the “meh” camp: While for some it can feel like e-commerce is the only commerce, Americans still buy about 85 percent of our stuff in person. And our internet shopping over recent years has been a contributing factor to a record number of store closings every year and other retail pain — but it hasn’t been the cause.

What’s remarkable, though, is the profound effect from the relatively small amount of digital shopping. Online shopping has changed our behavior, reordered the nature of work and challenged the functioning of our neighborhoods and cities.

If that has been the impact when online shopping is 15 percent of what we buy, what happens if the pandemic permanently kicks that share to one quarter or more?

We should cheer the convenience of online shopping, and it’s the safest option for many people in the pandemic. It has also created new opportunities for businesses to reach new customers.

That doesn’t mean we should like everything about the new order.

But first we need to recognize what online shopping has changed — and what it hasn’t.

First, Amazon didn’t push chains like J.C. Penney and J. Crew into a canyon. There are complex economic forces at work, and a simple reality: America has too many store locations, and many retailers have acted dumb or greedy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Second, in-person stores aren’t going away. If anything, the last few years showed how much they matter. Amazon bought a grocery store chain, for goodness sake, and is building more food shops and convenience stores.

What has changed from online shopping are our brains and our world.

I am happy for shampoo to appear on command at my door. But we haven’t assessed what we lose when shopping shifts from wandering the mall with other humans to sitting alone at home with robots.

And as I’ve written before, in response to a small minority of our shopping shifting online, delivery orders have forced neighborhoods and cities to grapple with far more truck traffic and chaos.

ADVERTISEMENT

Online shopping is also creating jobs that may be better than conventional retail store work in some ways, but pose other challenges. Compared with retail store jobs, the work of the online shopping economy tends to be more automated, in fewer parts of the country and employs more men than women.

It’s not Amazon’s fault that its package sorting operation in Baltimore stands on the grounds of a former auto factory that once employed 8,000 people who made up to $100,000 a year in today’s dollars, while Amazon has half as many workers there making less than half as much. This is a broader economic reordering.

But is that it? Should we, as Amazon’s top spokesman suggested in The New York Times Opinion section in February, stop comparing a warehouse employee making $30,000 a year plus benefits to an autoworker making twice as much decades ago because these jobs might be the worker’s best option?

We shouldn’t preserve old ways of life because of nostalgia. But it doesn’t mean we should just shrug and turn the page, either.

Get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday; please sign up here.

ADVERTISEMENT

One of you still has a Walkman

When I asked you recently to send in your gadget fix-it questions, I definitely did not expect Judy from Los Angeles to ask about reviving her portable Sony CD player — a.k.a., the Walkman or Discman that was first made in the 1980s.

Dan Koeppel from the Wirecutter, a product recommendation site owned by The Times, tackled this retro tech query:

I admire your spirit. I assume this is a labor of love, and that’s always a good thing — even though this answer is going to emphasize the “labor” part.

Now, forensics. I’m going to take a guess and hope it makes me look like a genius: Some old music players, including those from Sony, had a button marked “hold.” When this switch is activated, the unit won’t turn on. Other models had switches for the battery. Look on the exterior and inside the battery compartment and flip any switches you find.

Did that work? If not, dig deeper. Look for any corrosion on the battery terminals and clean them. Wear protective gear for your hands and eyes. Battery acid is nasty stuff.

No go? I’m afraid there aren’t many self-help options left. As an Angeleno, I would have recommended my go-to electronics repair guy, but he retired last year. However, Los Angeles still has a dwindling number of old-school repair outlets.

If you’re up for an adventure, you might find somebody able to revive your classic device so you can (I hope) play that vintage Christina Aguilera CD.

Before we go …

  • How to balance work and keeping employees safe: One central business question of the pandemic is how much employers should do to protect workers. My colleague Karen Weise looked at one Amazon warehouse in Pennsylvania that missed early opportunities to safeguard employees, including not fully implementing some health measures for almost two months.
  • TikTok has a new boss: The app for short videos is one of the few apps from a Chinese company that has caught on everywhere. It just hired a high-profile new chief executive from Disney, my colleagues Brooks Barnes and Jack Nicas wrote. His challenge will be to keep TikTok relevant, make it financially viable, calm American lawmakers worried about its Chinese ownership and avoid the mistakes of internet hangouts that came before. Good luck, new guy!
  • Red state memes versus blue state memes: Nick Corasaniti on The Times’s politics team writes about the 33-year-old twins behind the popular Facebook page Occupy Democrats. The social media mavens of the left are emerging as a counterweight to the internet mastery of the right.

Hugs to this

Just watch this solo home quarantine recreation of the closing scene of “Dirty Dancing,” with a floor lamp standing in for Jennifer Grey. (My colleague Sapna Maheshwari spotted this in the “So Many Thoughts” newsletter.)

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

Get this newsletter in your inbox every weekday; please sign up here.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

In praise of the safety net

Unemployment insurance is making a huge difference.
The initial 88 million economic assistance check payments totaling nearly $158 billion were sent by the Treasury Department in April.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

Today’s column was devoted mainly to pointing out a largely unheralded success story of the pandemic: After a rocky start, expanded unemployment benefits have been doing what they were supposed to do, namely, provide a lifeline to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the lockdown.

It’s true that there are many workers — probably millions of them — still not getting the unemployment benefits they’re entitled to because state unemployment offices can’t handle the load. This inability to deal with a crisis, in turn, reflects many years of malign neglect: Some states, like Florida, deliberately made it hard to get benefits, while even blue states have inadequate systems and antiquated hardware. (New Jersey put out an appeal for people who know how to program in COBOL, a 60-year-old language that apparently still runs its computers.)

Despite all that, however, unemployment benefits have made a huge difference. Outlays for unemployment compensation in April were $46 billion higher than they were in April 2019. That means that they probably made up about half of the wages lost due to coronavirus-related job loss. And outlays in the first 15 days of May were roughly as high as those for all of April, which means that at this point they’re probably covering most of the lost wages.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is a big deal. The pandemic is causing a lot of hardship, but much less than you might have expected from Great Depression-level unemployment, and unemployment insurance is the biggest reason for that.

And this isn’t the first time safety net programs have made a huge difference in difficult times. Unemployment shot up after the 2008 financial crisis, and many families suffered. Yet America didn’t become a nation of soup kitchens and men selling apples on street corners. Why?

It was mainly because of unemployment insurance and food stamps. In fact, thanks to these programs, poverty barely increased during the Great Recession. (Quick aside: Will we stop using that term for the 2007-9 slump now that the coronavirus has given us an even deeper slump?)

So safety net programs are a really good thing in times of crisis. If you accept that, however, you also need to reject some popular ideas, especially on the right but also to some extent on the left.

ADVERTISEMENT

The right, of course, has always hated the idea of helping the unemployed, warning that such aid will encourage people to be lazy. Yet there’s very little evidence that this is a real problem even when the economy is doing well; and it makes no sense at all to worry about incentives for idleness when we want people to stay home to limit the spread of an infection.

But let me also point out that this crisis shows what is wrong with an idea popular with some (not all) on the left, that of universal basic income — a check the government sends to everyone, without conditions. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

Yet think of what’s happening now. Roughly one in five American workers are now unemployed, and the government is sending them checks that make up for most of their lost income. That’s a very good thing, and well worth the $80 billion or more that it will probably cost this month.

But sending monthly checks that big to everyone, regardless of whether they’ve lost a job to Covid-19, would cost on the order of $5 trillion a year — a quarter of G.D.P. That’s just not going to happen. So a universal benefit would, of necessity, be too small for those who can’t work — it wouldn’t be enough to live on.

ADVERTISEMENT

What we’re going through now, in other words, shows the virtues of a strong safety net, one that provides generous aid, not to everyone, but to those in need

The Times is providing free access to much of our coronavirus coverage; this newsletter, as well as our Coronavirus Briefing newsletter, are free. Please consider supporting our journalism with a subscription.

Quick Hits

How much has unemployment insurance helped?

Myths about Covid-19 relief.

Over our dead bodies.” Actually other people’s dead bodies.

How coronavirus overwhelmed the American state.

Feedback

If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Facing the Music

To do nothing, all the days of my life.YouTube

“UB” is for “unemployment benefits,” British version.

IN THE TIMES

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

|

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your Email|Privacy Policy|Contact Us

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018