Conglomeration occurs naturally - economies of scale in a large organization give it an advantage over smaller ones. Similar to how cities naturally occur. The problem is the organizations are not democratically controlled and so they act in ways that are unsustainable, anti customer and anti worker. Workers should manage the organization through a one person one vote principle (sometimes multi-stakeholder coops would make sense), and all commercial entities should be regulated by a democratic government.
That would be better true but I argue that even if you compare companies to cities the same problem occurs with cities, mega or very big cities are not sustainable or easier to manage, they just occur naturally.
I don’t think even if a company is worker owned or democratically controlled may still choose to go against the customer or competition with monopolistic practices so I’m not sure it’s possible to have mega corps be very positive in any way to society.
How do those people feed themselves? How do they move around? How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital? In the end is the average energy consumption per person smaller? The existence of mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs. There is not much to gain from gathering too many humans in one place for the sake of it.
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person.
Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person.
Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person.
Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person.
Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person.
Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital?
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Conglomeration occurs naturally - economies of scale in a large organization give it an advantage over smaller ones. Similar to how cities naturally occur. The problem is the organizations are not democratically controlled and so they act in ways that are unsustainable, anti customer and anti worker. Workers should manage the organization through a one person one vote principle (sometimes multi-stakeholder coops would make sense), and all commercial entities should be regulated by a democratic government.
That would be better true but I argue that even if you compare companies to cities the same problem occurs with cities, mega or very big cities are not sustainable or easier to manage, they just occur naturally.
I don’t think even if a company is worker owned or democratically controlled may still choose to go against the customer or competition with monopolistic practices so I’m not sure it’s possible to have mega corps be very positive in any way to society.
How are mega cities not sustainable?
How do those people feed themselves? How do they move around? How far away is the average person’s house from the workplace, or the market, or the hospital? In the end is the average energy consumption per person smaller? The existence of mega cities requires a lot of land elsewhere to sustain those people with the added transportation costs. There is not much to gain from gathering too many humans in one place for the sake of it.
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns
Dense cities are way more efficient than living spread out on the countryside.
Infrastructure cost is lower per person, because higher density means less km of pipes, wires, roads etc. per person. Mass transit is also more efficient in both monetary and resource cost than cars, but it is only viable with the density of a city.
I live 3 min by foot from the grocery store. Medium/high rise buildings and mixed zoning make that possible. Idk if you are thinking of American style suburbia, which is indeed very inefficient.
The farmland needed should be the same either way, but centralising stuff usually makes it more efficient. For example a cities grain needs can be met with a single freight train, which should use less energy than the same amount of grain transported in many small trucks to smaller towns