Similarly, there is never any scenario where a union is more effective than individuals each advocating for their own needs, because the organizations people negotiate with always negotiate in good faith, and both sides provide all available information to the other. /s

Corporations respond to our actions, certainly. But in the same way (and for the same reason), we respond to corporate actions. You can bet that every single one of those CEOs in the article is doing everything they legally can to prevent people from "choosing" to go elsewhere. Some are going beyond that.

I am a union member because I took individual action to become a member. This union would not be as powerful as it is without concerted actions of many individuals.

No single raindrop can cause a flood, but many singular raindrops are required for it to happen.

With enough advertising and lobbying, you can however influence the likelihoods of raindrops acting in certain ways. (I absolutely agree with you, but I believe that we shouldn't ignore the ways powerful people influence the masses.)

My point was more that people wouldn't join unions if individual action always was all it took.

Indeed, sometimes the role of the union is to get everybody doing the same thing, and provide a safety net for individuals who suffer repercussions for doing the thing.

Because the Tragedy of the Commons exists. Everyone doing what makes sense from their perspective doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.

Our legal systems are set up so that exploitative megacorps have a bunch of structural advantages (megacorps are allowed to coordinate whereas workers and independent producers aren't; capital can move freely to the most convenient jurisdiction but workers can't; companies can deduct their expenses and defer their taxes but individuals can't...). Most of the things we buy aren't conscious choices (and we'd go crazy if we tried), so it's more effective and more important to have the right systems and incentives to naturally create good outcomes.

> Voting in booths generally works better to affect change in systems like these with externalities, but voting with action and wallets also works.

I find that voting in booths doesn't tend to actually do anything, and voting with wallets actually accomplishes things.

I hear you, and I agree we definitely bear some responsibility for our actions, so it seems fair to question it.

However I really do wonder how much choice we have. Ultimately what I am going to say next comes down to believing the market is actually inefficient and prone to mistakes / manipulation.

While we can buy a gas guzzling car or a smaller greener vehicle, there is a lot of time energy and effort spent to manipulate the perception of the smaller vehicle so that its seen as less attractive to purchase, as well as less attractive to make.

More deeply, I'm not totally convinced that changing an individual to act ethically actually changes the group dynamic or consumption habits. Because by stating we have a responsibility to make ethical choices as a consumer we assume people act rationally all of the time when making purchasing decisions, which really isn't the case otherwise marketing wouldn't be effective. Finally, companies don't really respond to individuals, they respond to groups of people that fit their ideal customer profile. These groups likely have a different set of ethics than us and likely will not change to fit a different world view, at least in aggregate. Individually, sure, but not the whole group.

Maybe more succinctly, I believe there is a real distinction that occurs by looking at group dynamics which cannot be inferred or changed at the individual level and because of that choosing to act ethically as an individual wont ever get the attention of billionaires or massive corporations.

Not trying to be argumentative, I live in the same way you describe, but ultimately I don't think its going to change how apple operates. No matter how many people I tell.

You can “choose” assuming you have disposable income. For people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment. It’s more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase and it should be obvious.

In many cases the choice goes the other way. Are you saving money by replacing your computer a year sooner or participating in fast fashion instead of buying second hand clothes? Even if you're cash constrained and fast fashion is not an option, you still have the choice between Walmart and Goodwill.

And generally the people propping up these organizations are the people with disposable income because they're the ones who can pay the margins that keep the companies rich. If you can afford a new Macbook, you can afford something from Framework. The person without a choice is buying something used from eBay or doesn't have a laptop at all.

Doesn't this imply that there's an entire group of people who are now better off, if they have to choose between (a) the relatively new availability of cheap clothes or food and (b) going without? Previously they went without?