Harsh, Fluorescent Lighting, Not to Mention Microplastics

When Art or I point to Walmart as a marvel of the modern world, we often find ourselves fending off objections.

What about the “harsh, fluorescent” lighting inside your typical Walmart?

We’re tempted to respond by asking, “Ever heard of a First World Problem?”

While snarky, our response captures something vital. Failure to apprehend the “relevant alternative” is a hallmark of the uneconomic mind. What are the alternatives here? Before Walmart existed, it was whatever we used to have (we’re frankly too young to know for sure). Probably small mom-and-pop stores offering a fraction of Walmart’s wares at a multiple of Walmart’s prices. And far enough before that, the Middle Ages, which stunk quite literally.

Alternatively, Walmart could light their stores with candles, resulting in their insurance costs going through the roof and higher prices of their goods. Fancier, “soft” lighting would likewise be more costly. Either way, you, dear Walmart shopper, are paying somehow. 

If “harsh, fluorescent” lighting isn’t your biggest beef, maybe it’s something like microplastics (which harm sea creatures and humans alike). Certainly, critics of modernity are quick to castigate at these features of contemporary life. In our view, such criticisms fail to seriously grapple with the first question the economist asks: What’s the alternative? For example, we could ban these technologies. The cost would be that the planet would be incapable of sustaining as many lives, nor would those lives be as healthy on average. 

Finally, we think such objections fail to appreciate that such goods are transitional. They're temporary until innovators develop better ways of lighting stores and packaging products. Asbestos is in every old building; now, it's not used anywhere. A similar fate probably awaits microplastics.

And notice, for example the new Walmart layout. Is that natural lighting I see...?