Posted: 5/4/2012 9:45:21 AM
A gym I just joined that made me think of the economy.
They’re sprouting up everywhere. One near my residence, another just about a mile or 2 away.
The owner of this entity might have said something such as: “Let’s try something new. Let’s start a gym that’s open 24-7 for those who prefer to exercise before work in the morning. I can buy my equipment in bulk, and therefore charge my customers less.”
The idea appears to have worked, because, as previously stated, they’re popping up everywhere.
So to look at this we can see that he’s providing an in demand service, benefitting many customers and creating jobs. Don’t know, but I’ll bet each gym employs about 30-50 people.
Now let’s say he expands greatly, creating hundreds or thousands of gyms nationwide. (This might even be the case.) He’s then provided a service that many want, and has employed many in so doing.
Good story, right? I can think of some probable exceptions.
From the above scenario, a lot of good was done, but a little bad. Gold’s Gym, who couldn’t match his prices, has gone under. It’s not fair that the employees of Gold’s have to lose their jobs. IMO, that’s true and very unfortunate. Should Gold’s Gym be propped up artificially to save the jobs of its employees? IMO, and at the risk of seeming callous, no. Nobody ever said free markets were perfect. Only in the Garden of Eden was everything perfect.
The former employees of Gold’s might be able, with their experience, to occupy positions at Planet Fitness. Or perhaps might even have to enter a new line of work. This would be unfortunate for those, but considering the new jobs and services provided by Planet Fitness, a trade-off that must be made for the benefit of society as a whole.
This, IMO, represents the most efficient form of economy, despite its admitted shortcomings.