But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
The same can be said for the time of the employee retrieving carts.
An employee is needed to return the carts from the corral to the store. If the employee isn’t spending their time hiking to the far ends of the parking lot to retrieve carts, they would probably be required to spend that time making the shopping environment more attractive to consumers in some other way.
As opposed to restaurant tables, where the busser generally gets a tip (or a portion thereof) for the work?
In my mind, there’s a difference between “doing work for the corporation” and “leaving a place in as good a condition as you found it.” After all, the fact that there are street sweepers (who might be out of work if nobody littered!!!) doesn’t excuse littering.
