But as a criticism against the already collected power of corporations and oligarchs that wariness just means individuals stay unfocused and weak vs concentrated and powerful interests.
The broad correlation (and correlation isn't necessarily causation) is that as union power decreased, so did real wage growth.
Short version: power vacuums get filled.
It simply means groups need to adapt to the realities on the ground. Your 1,000,000 milk drinkers may be better off measuring existing players vs buying milk collectively.
Dealing with information asymmetry not distribution can result in better outcomes without expending nearly as many resources.
PS: Consumer reports is a solid example. Collecting a lot of information on each toaster/fridge/bed is not practical for an individual, but split that among 1,000,000 people and each can save more money than the cost of a subscription.
Exactly. I tend to be wary of concentrating power. The larger the group the more likely that there are conflicts of interest within the group.
Perhaps more importantly, large groups just don't make sense in a lot of cases. If I make a union of milk drinkers, we can buy in huge bulk and get a discount. But then we have 1000000 bottles of milk in one place that will go bad in a couple weeks. We need to invent a distribution network, and a way to figure out who actually needs milk and when, and a way to track who is drinking the most milk so they can pay higher dues. In other words, the union hasn't accomplished anything and basically everything will be the same.