Zero-Sum and Other Crackpot Work-Induced Theories
OK, so I was at work today (which, for those not familiar with my current view of how the week works, actually translates to last night -- well, around 2AM), and I came to the realization of exactly why I don't believe a one-day boycott of all businesses by part of a community will be effective. I have entitled this the Zero-Sum Theory.
OK, so some background, for those not in the know with local current events.
A little over a week ago, Governor Brewer signed a bill into law, which requires law officers of all levels throughout the state of Arizona to question the legal immigration status of those they have "reasonable suspicion" might be illegal immigrants.
What this boils down to, despite assurances and an amendment to the contrary, is that anyone who has the appearance of being an illegal immigrant (broken English or non-English, appears to be of non-American descent -- aka the color of their skin), if encountering law officers for any reason (criminal action, traffic violation, or even if they make something up -- and they do; how many people have been pulled over for going "3 over" the speed limit when your speedometer states you're going slightly under?), have the responsibility to request proof of legal residency or passport/visa establishing right to be on US soil.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not the world's largest fan of illegal immigration, because it does impact our economy. Not always in a negative way, but it can. I believe that the ICE (they're not INS anymore, apparently) standards should be revisited to make it more timely for people to properly immigrate -- which would deal with a LOT of the problem. But that's neither here nor there. The problem here is, here in Arizona, there's plenty of people who have the appearance of being of Latin-American descent. (Not surprising, since not THAT long ago, Arizona was PART of Mexico.) Many of them speak English very sparingly, if at all. And many of them are either legally recognized immigrants or native-born. (Rarer for native-born Latin-Americans to have a harder time with English, but I've seen this.)
The law, for all its "good intentions" (fyi, it was proposed by a person who sees nothing wrong with injecting the term "wetbacks" into polite conversation), will further encourage racial profiling. You can tell the officers not to do it, but if they're being told to look for illegal immigrants, are they suddenly supposed to expect all people of being illegal immigrants? Or, given that we live in Arizona, and the concern is illegals coming in from Mexico, are they going to focus on people who have Mexican appearances and speech? Exactly.
OK, enough ranting. So today, many of the people who strongly oppose this new law (which goes into effect in July, if nothing happens) are boycotting all businesses, refusing to do any shopping throughout the state. (Presumably, those who live near borders intend to traipse across the borders for their needs.) They feel that, by boycotting all businesses within Arizona, this will make people recognize them as a force to be reckoned with.
So here's where my theory starts to develop. Assuming (based on the last poll I've heard, but take the individual numbers with a grain of salt) that 30% of Arizonans oppose the bill strongly enough to take part in this protest/boycott, that's 30% of every business's income, across the state. Sounds like a viable impact, right? Wrong, and here's why.
Firstly, consider that most of that 30% is being spent away from the borders; thus, the people participating in this boycott either made their purchases the day in advance -- to allow them to avoid stores, especially for groceries or gas -- or intend to make them the day after -- provided they planned well enough in advance to make it to tomorrow. In addition, I suspect there are those who will break down, realizing they need something today, and will go buy it, regardless of their commitment. They'll hem and haw about it, of course, but they'll do it.
By nature of the fact that the money "lost" today creates small revenue "spikes" yesterday and tomorrow leads to my theory of Zero-Sum; that is, regardless what days the numbers show up on, these three days taken together will show a zero-sum differentiation.
Second, they've made their boycott publicly known, which created a backlash from those in favor of the bill, who're planning a "buy-cott" today. Assuming 70/30 distribution of customers across all businesses (virtually impossible, but go with it for the moment), you actually have a net increase of 40% profit for each business (or, averaging, about that yet) if all supporters of the bill are "buy-cotters". This runs completely contrary to the boycotters' plans, because it'll make it look like they're less valuable, not more.
However, again turning to the Zero-Sum Theory, the money spent on boosting sales today on the part of the "buy-cotters" comes from somewhere: the same money which would've likely be spent either before or after today. This is likely to be a slightly more long-term change, possibly altering the week before or after; however, taking this time frame into consideration, the net result of "buy-cotting" is, again, zero-sum.
In fact, to go one step further, depending on the individual distribution of boycotting/buy-cotting, my current prediction is that the entire state economy/sales figures for this event (and surrounding days) will average very closely to a true zero-sum, as the two forces cancel each other out. (I do not expect that the full 70% supporting this bill will alter their purchasing habits significantly.)
This is different from boycotting an individual store, especially one with competition, because in those situations, it's possible (provided the number of detractors is higher than the number of supporters, and provided the casual consumers are easily swayed) to force a business to change its habits (or go out of business) under a boycott. There's not much of a situation for alternative spending venues for boycotting Arizona; those who live near another state's border, or the border with Mexico, can of course head out of the state to spend their money, but otherwise it just becomes a meaningless event.
OK, so some background, for those not in the know with local current events.
A little over a week ago, Governor Brewer signed a bill into law, which requires law officers of all levels throughout the state of Arizona to question the legal immigration status of those they have "reasonable suspicion" might be illegal immigrants.
What this boils down to, despite assurances and an amendment to the contrary, is that anyone who has the appearance of being an illegal immigrant (broken English or non-English, appears to be of non-American descent -- aka the color of their skin), if encountering law officers for any reason (criminal action, traffic violation, or even if they make something up -- and they do; how many people have been pulled over for going "3 over" the speed limit when your speedometer states you're going slightly under?), have the responsibility to request proof of legal residency or passport/visa establishing right to be on US soil.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not the world's largest fan of illegal immigration, because it does impact our economy. Not always in a negative way, but it can. I believe that the ICE (they're not INS anymore, apparently) standards should be revisited to make it more timely for people to properly immigrate -- which would deal with a LOT of the problem. But that's neither here nor there. The problem here is, here in Arizona, there's plenty of people who have the appearance of being of Latin-American descent. (Not surprising, since not THAT long ago, Arizona was PART of Mexico.) Many of them speak English very sparingly, if at all. And many of them are either legally recognized immigrants or native-born. (Rarer for native-born Latin-Americans to have a harder time with English, but I've seen this.)
The law, for all its "good intentions" (fyi, it was proposed by a person who sees nothing wrong with injecting the term "wetbacks" into polite conversation), will further encourage racial profiling. You can tell the officers not to do it, but if they're being told to look for illegal immigrants, are they suddenly supposed to expect all people of being illegal immigrants? Or, given that we live in Arizona, and the concern is illegals coming in from Mexico, are they going to focus on people who have Mexican appearances and speech? Exactly.
OK, enough ranting. So today, many of the people who strongly oppose this new law (which goes into effect in July, if nothing happens) are boycotting all businesses, refusing to do any shopping throughout the state. (Presumably, those who live near borders intend to traipse across the borders for their needs.) They feel that, by boycotting all businesses within Arizona, this will make people recognize them as a force to be reckoned with.
So here's where my theory starts to develop. Assuming (based on the last poll I've heard, but take the individual numbers with a grain of salt) that 30% of Arizonans oppose the bill strongly enough to take part in this protest/boycott, that's 30% of every business's income, across the state. Sounds like a viable impact, right? Wrong, and here's why.
Firstly, consider that most of that 30% is being spent away from the borders; thus, the people participating in this boycott either made their purchases the day in advance -- to allow them to avoid stores, especially for groceries or gas -- or intend to make them the day after -- provided they planned well enough in advance to make it to tomorrow. In addition, I suspect there are those who will break down, realizing they need something today, and will go buy it, regardless of their commitment. They'll hem and haw about it, of course, but they'll do it.
By nature of the fact that the money "lost" today creates small revenue "spikes" yesterday and tomorrow leads to my theory of Zero-Sum; that is, regardless what days the numbers show up on, these three days taken together will show a zero-sum differentiation.
Second, they've made their boycott publicly known, which created a backlash from those in favor of the bill, who're planning a "buy-cott" today. Assuming 70/30 distribution of customers across all businesses (virtually impossible, but go with it for the moment), you actually have a net increase of 40% profit for each business (or, averaging, about that yet) if all supporters of the bill are "buy-cotters". This runs completely contrary to the boycotters' plans, because it'll make it look like they're less valuable, not more.
However, again turning to the Zero-Sum Theory, the money spent on boosting sales today on the part of the "buy-cotters" comes from somewhere: the same money which would've likely be spent either before or after today. This is likely to be a slightly more long-term change, possibly altering the week before or after; however, taking this time frame into consideration, the net result of "buy-cotting" is, again, zero-sum.
In fact, to go one step further, depending on the individual distribution of boycotting/buy-cotting, my current prediction is that the entire state economy/sales figures for this event (and surrounding days) will average very closely to a true zero-sum, as the two forces cancel each other out. (I do not expect that the full 70% supporting this bill will alter their purchasing habits significantly.)
This is different from boycotting an individual store, especially one with competition, because in those situations, it's possible (provided the number of detractors is higher than the number of supporters, and provided the casual consumers are easily swayed) to force a business to change its habits (or go out of business) under a boycott. There's not much of a situation for alternative spending venues for boycotting Arizona; those who live near another state's border, or the border with Mexico, can of course head out of the state to spend their money, but otherwise it just becomes a meaningless event.