• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals and Walmart

Lovebug said:
Try finding jobs in small town KY, AL, MS, part of WVA, VA or TN. Yeah, COL is low, but jobs...lol.
Click to expand...

Uhhh, been there and done that.

I was in Alabama just over a week when I got a job, and not at minimum wage. Less then a month later I got a good paying computer job there, which I held until I joined the Army in 2007. And the population was only around 60,000.

Moving from a city like Los Angeles, I quickly became a big fish in a small pond. My skillset and experience was far in advance of any of the local competition, and I nailed my job there after a 15 minute interview with the owner, who was not even thinking of hiring anybody before I walked in the door. Within 2 months I was the senior technician in the company.

tacomancer said:
Seriously! I couldn't make a decent wage until I GTFO a small town and moved to a larger city.
Click to expand...

That is great. But what was your disposable income like after expenses?

Lursa said:
THat is what humans have had to do, always....move to where the resources, food, jobs are. Or develop a trade or skill that you can make a living wage on in the area you desire.
Click to expand...

Over the years I have accumulated a great many trade skills. All of which have come in handy several times.

Primarily, I am a Computer Engineer. Wages are high, but turnover tends to be low in this field. So I often spend long periods of time between work.

The next is as a DJ. I have almost never had a problem finding gigs, and this was my first job when I got to Alabama. Once again, helpful when you have an experience level far above what most of the locals have.

Finaly, there is security. That is what I am doing now, but not the "wear a uniform and stand around" type of work. I do undercover security, more fun and better paying then the usual security guard.

Lursa said:
Why cant they get those things or move? We all can get a high school diploma, for free.
Click to expand...

That is all I have. My skills I worked hard to acquire over the years. Back when I started, there were almost no "computer schools", you learned by doing. I volunteered to work at a computer shop for almost 2 years at no pay during the end of my time in the Marines. That taught me enough so I was able to get a job in the field once I got out when the economy improved.

Lovebug said:
Some people don't have the funds to go to the grocery store, to buy a car to go to a job.
Click to expand...

Then they have a lot more problems then simply a store closing.

If you are living in a small town with no car or job, you are already damned near on the street.

Paleocon said:
When rightists go liberal, they go full retard. Note how you completely avoided refuting the fact that big chain stores are bad for local business.
Click to expand...

Really?

Then why do we still have local businesses?

If that was true, LA and most other cities would have no small businesses left. They would have been destroyed decades ago because there is one form of big box store or another almost every other block.

In Alabama, as I said, I lived in a town of 60,000 people. 2 Walmart super centers, 2 Targets, K-Marts, Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Yet the small businesses flourished. One of them even grew to become a nation wide chain before it's business model collapsed (Movie Gallery).
 
Oozlefinch said:
Really?

Then why do we still have local businesses?

If that was true, LA and most other cities would have no small businesses left. They would have been destroyed decades ago because there is one form of big box store or another almost every other block.

In Alabama, as I said, I lived in a town of 60,000 people. 2 Walmart super centers, 2 Targets, K-Marts, Home Depot, Lowes, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Yet the small businesses flourished. One of them even grew to become a nation wide chain before it's business model collapsed (Movie Gallery).
Click to expand...

I think you're doing a good bit of conflating. Obviously Walmart isn't going to cause e.g. a self-employed plumber to be unable to make money, and no one has claimed it would.

But just to be clear, are you denying that big chain stores tend to put local ones under?
 
Paleocon said:
I think you're doing a good bit of conflating. Obviously Walmart isn't going to cause e.g. a self-employed plumber to be unable to make money, and no one has claimed it would.

But just to be clear, are you denying that big chain stores tend to put local ones under?
Click to expand...

I never said it did not.

But more then likely, those that did go under were already on the edge of the business failing in the first place. They probably would have gone out if any good competition opened up, no matter who it was. Businesses fail in this country every single day.

True statistic. Less then 48.8 percent of new businesses opened between 1977 and 2000 lasted longer then 5 years. That is less then half of them. So stating random percentages like "X number of businesses fail when Y store opens up", without giving a control percentage showing business failure in the area outside of the store opening (or maybe even the rate 3-5 years before the store opens) means absolutely nothing.

Also having an idea what the business is makes a difference. The 48% figure is average across all businesses. This can vary widely.

For Transportation and Communication, the failure rate jumps to 55% failure. IT companies? There is a 63% failure rate in the first 5 years. Retail, 53% failure rate in 5 years.

And even after 10 years in business, there is a 29% rate of failure. That means that if 10 businesses that opened on the same day survived 10 years, 3 of them will fail on average.

So simply stating businesses close without giving any other regional or local statistics is complete propaganda and failure.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I never said it did not.

But more then likely, those that did go under were already on the edge of the business failing in the first place. They probably would have gone out if any good competition opened up, no matter who it was. Businesses fail in this country every single day.

True statistic. Less then 48.8 percent of new businesses opened between 1977 and 2000 lasted longer then 5 years. That is less then half of them. So stating random percentages like "X number of businesses fail when Y store opens up", without giving a control percentage showing business failure in the area outside of the store opening (or maybe even the rate 3-5 years before the store opens) means absolutely nothing.

Also having an idea what the business is makes a difference. The 48% figure is average across all businesses. This can vary widely.

For Transportation and Communication, the failure rate jumps to 55% failure. IT companies? There is a 63% failure rate in the first 5 years. Retail, 53% failure rate in 5 years.

And even after 10 years in business, there is a 29% rate of failure. That means that if 10 businesses that opened on the same day survived 10 years, 3 of them will fail on average.

So simply stating businesses close without giving any other regional or local statistics is complete propaganda and failure.
Click to expand...

The bolded is what came to my mind as well. A Wall Mart moving in provided price and single store for everything level of competition that the smaller mom and pop stores weren't equipped to meet.

If the local population was galvanized against Wall Mart, and continued to shop their local mom and pops, eventually the Wall Mart would have been starved out. However, there was a local market for what Wall Mart had to offer at the price that Wall Mart was selling it. The market (well the shoppers in the market) made the choice; Wall Mart thrived, the mom and pops didn't. Harsh, but by my figuring, accurate.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Here is something that got me thinking a bit ago.

One thing I have noticed is that whenever a big box store like Walmart opens, a lot of the brain dead Liberals start to scream that it is going to destroy local businesses. This is repeated so often it is a cliche. They scream and rant and protest that they are doing it to destroy the economy. Yet the people still flock to them, and get 10 applicants for every job opening.

Well, recently had the announcement that the company is closing some stores. Mostly the older or smaller ones that are under performing in areas. You would think that these same people would be applauding, right? Wrong, now they are screaming that these stores are being closed from corporate greed.

Well, if what they said earlier is right, then these closures should create an opening that will allow smaller stores to open and flourish, right? Smaller stores that will employ more people and pay higher wages. These closures should create a huge number of new jobs, that were destroyed when the store was first opened.

Yea, and I have prime ocean front land for sale in Arizona.

Let me tell a fast story about one such store. First opened in 1988, it was one of the first Walmarts to open in California. Located less then 4 miles outside of a Navy Base, the location thrived. In the early 1990's my family and I shopped there regularly, it was far better then the other stores in the area. Then in 1995 the Navy base closed, and people and businesses started to leave as the economy tanked. Because of that and other issues, the store closed in 2006.

Well, here it is 10 years later, and the store is still closed. Nothing else moved into the location (not counting the homeless that break into it on a regular basis). And half of the store fronts in the rest of the plaza are now also vacant. No revitalization of the economy, it just continued to sink.

2877565305_61dc057a16.jpg


So I would like to have somebody explain to me this paradox. How a store opening will destroy a local economy, then the same store closing will also destroy the local economy. Because you can't have it both ways. And why it is evil for a company to build new stores, then evil again when it feels the need to close stores.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand. Per your post it appears the Navy base was responsible for much of the economy in the area. It closed which resulted in quite a few businesses closing including the Walmart. Is that accurate? As to when the Navy base was operating would it be better for the local economy to have a hardware store, clothing stores, appliance stores, electronic stores etc. or 1 Walmart? I don't really know the answer but I can see the big box stores driving out quite a bit of local business. I think the way to combat a Walmart is to focus on a niche and provide a better quality product. You sure aren't going to beat them on price. I am fortunate or not. My community supports a Walmart, Target, BJ's , along with an outlet mall 2 grocery stores and some local small stores. Although they are primary service and food. The outlets get quite a bit of traffic from NYC on the weekends and the Walmart gets quite a bit of business from the Hacidic community. Depends on what the local economy can support.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I never said it did not.

But more then likely, those that did go under were already on the edge of the business failing in the first place. They probably would have gone out if any good competition opened up, no matter who it was. Businesses fail in this country every single day.

True statistic. Less then 48.8 percent of new businesses opened between 1977 and 2000 lasted longer then 5 years. That is less then half of them. So stating random percentages like "X number of businesses fail when Y store opens up", without giving a control percentage showing business failure in the area outside of the store opening (or maybe even the rate 3-5 years before the store opens) means absolutely nothing.

Also having an idea what the business is makes a difference. The 48% figure is average across all businesses. This can vary widely.

For Transportation and Communication, the failure rate jumps to 55% failure. IT companies? There is a 63% failure rate in the first 5 years. Retail, 53% failure rate in 5 years.

And even after 10 years in business, there is a 29% rate of failure. That means that if 10 businesses that opened on the same day survived 10 years, 3 of them will fail on average.

So simply stating businesses close without giving any other regional or local statistics is complete propaganda and failure.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that singling out Walmart (or any other chain store) and declaring that everything would be ok if we could just get rid of them is foolish and silly. But it's possible that the control is itself problematic. Is there anywhere in the country with no chain stores? And are there statistics on the success rate of small businesses in those places, if they exist?

eohrnberger said:
If the local population was galvanized against Wall Mart, and continued to shop their local mom and pops, eventually the Wall Mart would have been starved out. However, there was a local market for what Wall Mart had to offer at the price that Wall Mart was selling it. The market (well the shoppers in the market) made the choice; Wall Mart thrived, the mom and pops didn't. Harsh, but by my figuring, accurate.
Click to expand...

It's not reasonable to expect the average person to base their day to day economic decisions on ideology of any kind.

And markets exist for goods (and services). Prices are (both justly and unjustly, and of course through a wide variety of means) imposed on them. Unless Walmart copied someone else's prices, there was no preexisting market for X good at Walmart price.
 
Paleocon said:
I'd agree that singling out Walmart (or any other chain store) and declaring that everything would be ok if we could just get rid of them is foolish and silly. But it's possible that the control is itself problematic. Is there anywhere in the country with no chain stores? And are there statistics on the success rate of small businesses in those places, if they exist?



It's not reasonable to expect the average person to base their day to day economic decisions on ideology of any kind.

And markets exist for goods (and services). Prices are (both justly and unjustly, and of course through a wide variety of means) imposed on them. Unless Walmart copied someone else's prices, there was no preexisting market for X good at Walmart price.
Click to expand...

Couldn't you also say that there was an unserved market for X good at WalMart prices, and it wasn't until WalMart entered the market with good X at their price that this market was served? Didn't this market exist before Walmart come into that local market?
 
eohrnberger said:
Couldn't you also say that there was an unserved market for X good at WalMart prices, and it wasn't until WalMart entered the market with good X at their price that this market was served? Didn't this market exist before Walmart come into that local market?
Click to expand...

If people were willing to pay price Y for good X, then of course there exists a potential or unserved market for it. But there are an infinite number of potential markets, so that doesn't really say much. And in any case, the market for good X at Walmart price did not exist as an actuality until Walmart started selling at that price.
 
Paleocon said:
If people were willing to pay price Y for good X, then of course there exists a potential or unserved market for it. But there are an infinite number of potential markets, so that doesn't really say much. And in any case, the market for good X at Walmart price did not exist as an actuality until Walmart started selling at that price.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Infinite number of potential markets. I'd have to ponder that a bit more before I'd either support it or not. I guess there could be an infinite number of potential markets.

I still come down on the side that the market was there, wasn't served, until someone, and in this case Wallmart, could service up good X at price Y.

It might be the case that the stores that service that local area didn't realize the demand for good X and price Y and weren't serving it. But just because the players in the local market didn't realize that there was a hidden demand for good X at price Y, does that mean that that market didn't exist? Or just that that market wasn't recognized and wasn't being served?
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. Infinite number of potential markets. I'd have to ponder that a bit more before I'd either support it or not. I guess there could be an infinite number of potential markets.
Click to expand...

No matter how much stuff was on the market, there would always be something else that could hypothetically be so. Thus there's always an infinite number of potential markets.

I still come down on the side that the market was there, wasn't served, until someone, and in this case Wallmart, could service up good X at price Y.

It might be the case that the stores that service that local area didn't realize the demand for good X and price Y and weren't serving it. But just because the players in the local market didn't realize that there was a hidden demand for good X at price Y, does that mean that that market didn't exist? Or just that that market wasn't recognized and wasn't being served?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define "market". If by market you mean actual commerce, then obviously the market for X at Y price did not exist until X was sold at Y price. If you define it as anything that could hypothetically be sold, then the market is infinite. If you define it as anything that someone has actually wanted sold, then it's practically infinite (given all the people who've doubtless thought that X should be sold at whatever price). Is there another definition you're using?
 
Oozlefinch said:
Because primarily the employees do not want to.

One of the stores closing in LA is in Chinatown. And the employees themselves voted against the Union.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, a great many places do not want to unionize.

Here is a true fact. I worked for a year at the only Southern California Theme Park (Six Flags Magic Mountain) that is not unionized. And during that year (1993) it was a regular occurance to see union organizers going up to employees and encouraging them to vote to unionize the park.

Well, here it is 23 years later, and the park is still not union. Why? Because the employees do not want it. They are happy the way things are, they make a good wage with decent benefits, and many are part-time or seasonal employees. If the park went union, all of that would vanish. The part-timers and seasonals would be out of work, replaced by fewer full time employees.

Plus, the fact that many of the seasonals are high school kids. If the park ever went union, every single one of them would be out of a job.

Here is the dirty fact that unions do not want people to know. If employees are happy, they generally do not want to unionize. That however does not stop them from protesting the company (and in fact the employees themselves) simply because they want in.
Click to expand...
It also doesn't hurt that any of the employees to join the union or attempt to organize their fellow workers are fired the setting an example that unionization is not wanted. And Walmarts case when stores do vote to unionize they're closed down immediately.

Funny thing is Walmart is unionized in their overseas locations.....
 
Paleocon said:
No matter how much stuff was on the market, there would always be something else that could hypothetically be so. Thus there's always an infinite number of potential markets.[/quo]te

Yeah, that's kinda where I was leaning.

Paleocon said:
It depends on how you define "market". If by market you mean actual commerce, then obviously the market for X at Y price did not exist until X was sold at Y price. If you define it as anything that could hypothetically be sold, then the market is infinite. If you define it as anything that someone has actually wanted sold, then it's practically infinite (given all the people who've doubtless thought that X should be sold at whatever price). Is there another definition you're using?
Click to expand...

No, I think I'm more aligned to your second definition of market. Commerce occurs when a buy and seller agree to good / service X at price Y and make an exchange of said good / service at price Y.

A market is a point where there is a demand for good / service X at price Y, whether there's someone serving that market or not. If no one is serving that market, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that no one is serving it. Once someone is serving that market, then commerce is being conducted and that market is being served.

Yeah, I know. Probably completely backwards of the more formal definitions in use in the industry, but it just seems to be common sense to me.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Paleocon said:
No matter how much stuff was on the market, there would always be something else that could hypothetically be so. Thus there's always an infinite number of potential markets.[/quo]te

Yeah, that's kinda where I was leaning.



No, I think I'm more aligned to your second definition of market. Commerce occurs when a buy and seller agree to good / service X at price Y and make an exchange of said good / service at price Y.

A market is a point where there is a demand for good / service X at price Y, whether there's someone serving that market or not. If no one is serving that market, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that no one is serving it. Once someone is serving that market, then commerce is being conducted and that market is being served.

Yeah, I know. Probably completely backwards of the more formal definitions in use in the industry, but it just seems to be common sense to me.
Click to expand...

Well by that second definition, a market exists for everything at every possible price. Since anything could be sold, and theoretically could go at any price.
Click to expand...
 
Paleocon said:
eohrnberger said:
Well by that second definition, a market exists for everything at every possible price. Since anything could be sold, and theoretically could go at any price.
Click to expand...

I don't think a separate price for the same good / service makes for a separate market. Maybe that's the source of the needless complication?
Click to expand...
 
Hari Seldon said:
I don't quite understand. Per your post it appears the Navy base was responsible for much of the economy in the area. It closed which resulted in quite a few businesses closing including the Walmart. Is that accurate? As to when the Navy base was operating would it be better for the local economy to have a hardware store, clothing stores, appliance stores, electronic stores etc. or 1 Walmart?
Click to expand...

Actually, the Wallmart moved about 15 miles North to another town. It did not close because of the economy, it closed because the city it was in refused to let them either enlarge the store to a SuperWalmart, or to move to a new location in town. They actually bought the complex that once housed the local Big Lots and K-Mart, but the city refused to let them build a new store. So 10 years later the former complex has been a vacant lot.

The people now drive 15 miles further to reach the Walmart, and in the decade since the store moved even more businesses have closed. They did finally open a Neighborhood Market 2 years ago, but I have no idea why anybody would go out of their way to go to one of those. It is just another grovery store, without a club card program.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Here is something that got me thinking a bit ago.

One thing I have noticed is that whenever a big box store like Walmart opens, a lot of the brain dead Liberals start to scream that it is going to destroy local businesses. This is repeated so often it is a cliche. They scream and rant and protest that they are doing it to destroy the economy. Yet the people still flock to them, and get 10 applicants for every job opening.

Well, recently had the announcement that the company is closing some stores. Mostly the older or smaller ones that are under performing in areas. You would think that these same people would be applauding, right? Wrong, now they are screaming that these stores are being closed from corporate greed.

Well, if what they said earlier is right, then these closures should create an opening that will allow smaller stores to open and flourish, right? Smaller stores that will employ more people and pay higher wages. These closures should create a huge number of new jobs, that were destroyed when the store was first opened.
Click to expand...

There's so much wrong with this argument that it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start at the beginning:
  • "a lot of the brain dead Liberals start to scream that it is going to destroy local businesses" Well, it's far from just liberals who see the business model of these retail conglomerates to be detrimental to small, local businesses, unless you think only liberals are concerned about small business people. Wasn't it arch-conservative country start Allan Jackson who pioneered the cause of small mom and pop businesses in 'The Little Man'?
  • It's not the presence or absence of large stores that bothers anyone, it's the effect of those businesses on other local businesses. Their pricing, hiring, marketing and supply policies have huge implications for their local competitors. The main complaint, and one that has proved correct, is that once one of those megastores opens, other local businesses go out of business. The subsequent closure of a Walmart (or what have you) doesn't mean that the old businesses, often forced into liquidation or bankruptcy, can simply reopen. That's a ridiculously simplistic idea.
  • The destruction of locally-based businesses costs small communities jobs. Lots of them, and in communities which were already in need of more employment than was available. I wonder if that might explain why people flood Walmart with job applications? Crazy idea, eh?
  • You think that people pointing out that corporate greed leads the Walmarts of the world to open and close stores on a whim and without regard for the consequences for communities of their carpet-bagging business ethics is hypocritical? The closure of these stores is simply the vindication of what the anti-corporate campaigners were arguing. These companies have no commitment to communities, to employees, to suppliers, in fact they have no commitment to any stake-holder except one: to stock-holders.

So, you start a thread to attack liberals. As I'm not a liberal that doesn't bother me much, but if you're going to do it, you might try harder to make an argument that bears more than 15 seconds' scrutiny.
 
Paleocon said:
I'd agree that singling out Walmart (or any other chain store) and declaring that everything would be ok if we could just get rid of them is foolish and silly. But it's possible that the control is itself problematic. Is there anywhere in the country with no chain stores? And are there statistics on the success rate of small businesses in those places, if they exist?
Click to expand...

But the claim is that if a new chain store opens, X number of businesses will close.

I doubt you will find places with no chain stores, but I am sure you can find some wherethe store has been in place for over 5-10 years, so any theoretical loss of business would have stabilized. Another method to at least give an idea of the economic growth/loss of the area is to study the previous 5 years, and compare that to the city-county-state as a whole. If after BigBox moves in the local economy shrinks but theother economic factors all go up, there may very well be a connection.

But if the local shrinks, but also everything from county to national shrinks as well, then there is much less likely to be any kind of connection at all (like those stats mentioned in an earlier report that listed business closures in 2008). Yea, no duh, many do not call 2008 the "Great Recession" for nothing after all. So now I guess the simpletons will blame President Bush and Walmart for that.

But in most of these reports, they make their own statistics. They count the number of businesses that close in a time period in the area they are concerned with, and that is the statistic. But they do not even attempt to do a similar count at a distance outside of their target area, to see if the result they get is normal for the area or not.

If these were scientific studies on the effect of dropping a mystery liquid onto the grass and counting blades of grass that died, the results would be run right out of serious consideration if it did not also count what happened in areas where there was no liquid dropped into the grass. And all of the other factors in place. Like dropping the liquid into the grass when the forest all around it is burning to the ground anyways. The grass dies, but how much of that was related to the liquid at all?

Paleocon said:
It's not reasonable to expect the average person to base their day to day economic decisions on ideology of any kind.

And markets exist for goods (and services). Prices are (both justly and unjustly, and of course through a wide variety of means) imposed on them. Unless Walmart copied someone else's prices, there was no preexisting market for X good at Walmart price.
Click to expand...

Walmart is a discount department store. Nothing that 10,000 other chains before them did not do, the only difference is the scale that they did it at.

Personally, I really do not care about them, one way or another. 25 years ago when I first moved to where a Walmart was, I saw nothing special. We had 2 or 3 other similar stores that were much closer to where we lived, so why would I drive across town to that store? Prices were really no different then K-Mart or Roses, and were higher then Pick-n-Save. If I was going to drive all the way across town for something, might as well drive all the way on-base and get it at the exchange.

I live within 10 miles of a Walmart super center and also a Neighborhood Market. I have never been to the market, and go to the super center maybe once a month. I simply see no reason to go to either one really. The only time I ever frequented a Neighborhood Market was literally when we moved to a place less then 100 meters away from one (and a 5 mile drive to the next closest grocery store). Prices about the same as a Raley's or Safeway, more expensive then a Food 4 Less or Food Maxx.
 
Andalublue said:
There's so much wrong with this argument that it's difficult to know where to start. Let's start at the beginning:
  • "a lot of the brain dead Liberals start to scream that it is going to destroy local businesses" Well, it's far from just liberals who see the business model of these retail conglomerates to be detrimental to small, local businesses, unless you think only liberals are concerned about small business people. Wasn't it arch-conservative country start Allan Jackson who pioneered the cause of small mom and pop businesses in 'The Little Man'?

    So, you start a thread to attack liberals. As I'm not a liberal that doesn't bother me much, but if you're going to do it, you might try harder to make an argument that bears more than 15 seconds' scrutiny.
Click to expand...


  • Wow, just wow. Back off will you, and re-read what I said.

    Yea, I said "brain dead liberals". And that is what I mean, that group of liberals who have their head stuck so far up their behind that their brain cells are dying from lack of oxygen.

    If I had meant Liberals, or more specifically all Liberals, I would have said so. Trust me there, I do not pull punchs, and say what I mean. I meant the group of Liberals who have their knees in a permanent hyperjerk reaction mode, and certain key words (Walmart) will set them twitching and jerking like they were Ron Paul at a John Birch society meeting.

    And there are a lot of Liberals who recognize that many of the screams and claims are not quite what their more radical friends say. So do not think this thread was in any way set to "attack Liberals". In fact, primarily it was to pose and ponder a question.

    But yea, thanks for repeating exactly the same points both myself and others have brought up many times, without looking any deeper then the surface. The same surface that led you to believe I was attacking all liberals.
 
I would like people to honestly think about their own buying habits, and where they shop.

Where was the last place they bought a car stereo? Their last Television? Their last meal? Their computer? An oil change for their car? A box of screws?

I can honestly say that for all but 2 of them, they were from local businesses. Lunch yesterday was at an Olive Garden, but that was picked by my unit and not me (I had dinner the night before at Taco Bell, was close to the hotel). My last TV was purchased at the exchange, which is really a category that does not fit in either the local or chain business classification.

In fact, in over 30 years of getting and having installed car stereos, I have never had it done at a "big box" store like Circuit City or Best Buy, or even K-mart. I always had it done by some small local shop, and would go from shop to shop until I found what it was I wanted. The same with computers, I have never bought a computer from anything but a specialty shop.

And of course there is also simply the fact that a great many types of businesses are closing up shop.

I am over 50, and can remember when every town had a vacuume and sewing machine repair ship, a cobbler, and lots of TV repair shops (some even did the work in your home). When was the last time any of you saw any of these businesses? I remember at one time it seemed like we had a VCR repair shop on every other corner by the end of the 1980's, where have all of those places gone?

Interestingly enough, you are more likely to find such businesses still operating in places where the economy is slow and depressed. Where people fix their old broken things instead of simply replacing them. But for most of us now, if the TV breaks you don't bother to fix it any more, you throw it away and buy a new one.
 
eohrnberger said:
Paleocon said:
I don't think a separate price for the same good / service makes for a separate market. Maybe that's the source of the needless complication?
Click to expand...

That was my point all along. Markets exist for goods. Prices are imposed on them by various forces.

Oozlefinch said:
I doubt you will find places with no chain stores
Click to expand...

This is my point. There would be a lot more small businesses if there were no chain stores. But there's no control sample because they're ubiquitous.
Click to expand...
 
Paleocon said:
eohrnberger said:
That was my point all along. Markets exist for goods. Prices are imposed on them by various forces.



This is my point. There would be a lot more small businesses if there were no chain stores. But there's no control sample because they're ubiquitous.
Click to expand...

Then we be 'good', as they say. :)
Click to expand...
 
Oozlefinch said:
Here is something that got me thinking a bit ago.

One thing I have noticed is that whenever a big box store like Walmart opens, a lot of the brain dead Liberals start to scream that it is going to destroy local businesses. This is repeated so often it is a cliche. They scream and rant and protest that they are doing it to destroy the economy. Yet the people still flock to them, and get 10 applicants for every job opening.

Well, recently had the announcement that the company is closing some stores. Mostly the older or smaller ones that are under performing in areas. You would think that these same people would be applauding, right? Wrong, now they are screaming that these stores are being closed from corporate greed.

Well, if what they said earlier is right, then these closures should create an opening that will allow smaller stores to open and flourish, right? Smaller stores that will employ more people and pay higher wages. These closures should create a huge number of new jobs, that were destroyed when the store was first opened.

Yea, and I have prime ocean front land for sale in Arizona.

Let me tell a fast story about one such store. First opened in 1988, it was one of the first Walmarts to open in California. Located less then 4 miles outside of a Navy Base, the location thrived. In the early 1990's my family and I shopped there regularly, it was far better then the other stores in the area. Then in 1995 the Navy base closed, and people and businesses started to leave as the economy tanked. Because of that and other issues, the store closed in 2006.

Well, here it is 10 years later, and the store is still closed. Nothing else moved into the location (not counting the homeless that break into it on a regular basis). And half of the store fronts in the rest of the plaza are now also vacant. No revitalization of the economy, it just continued to sink.

2877565305_61dc057a16.jpg


So I would like to have somebody explain to me this paradox. How a store opening will destroy a local economy, then the same store closing will also destroy the local economy. Because you can't have it both ways. And why it is evil for a company to build new stores, then evil again when it feels the need to close stores.
Click to expand...

very true!! Liberals and socialists hate Wal Mart out of pure ignorance it seems to me. Their basic principle is that we should have laws to support businesses that provide goods and services at higher prices!
 
Wonderful discussion near and dear to my heart. A pity I wasn't hanging around often a month ago. But if it's going to be lowkey necro'd anyway...

I was a child when Walmart first came to my town (also near a Navy base, coincidentally), and I was old enough that I still remember at the time everyone worried about small stores (actually even smaller-scale chains, since family worked at some of those). I was not for a long time mature enough to ever really connect it with any instance of any stores actually closing, although I know for a fact one of the three smaller chains in question did close a few years or so later.

Paleocon said:
This is my point. There would be a lot more small businesses if there were no chain stores. But there's no control sample because they're ubiquitous.
Click to expand...
Ah, economics. The science that can never have control groups.

How about a specific anecdote. I worked a while at the local grocery store in Ennis, Montana, a town of about 3000 in every season but summer. The store was off the highway, and down the road an hour or a little more was Bozeman, where there was Walmart. So residents and visitors had two shopping options, a small, local, expensive grocery store that really only survived for the fact that the other option, Walmart, was an hour drive. I remember a specific incident with a vacationing customer who was very upset with the prices and was very vocal in his complaints that we were the only store in town. I told him I couldn't do anything about that, and I even told him about the Walmart in Bozeman. I did this because, as Oozlefinch said, the only way small stores survive walmart is being focused on customer service and satisfaction, and the store's owners knew this very, very well--as did they the fact that competing with Walmart prices was futile and their business had to make up the difference in volume by charging premium prices and keep people coming by customer loyalty, convenience, and satisfaction. Customer service was my #1, #2, and #3 priority. The store is still operating today, though I'm also fairly sure it's still the only one in 50 miles. Which brings up another point, in a sec.

Obviously anecdotes are what they are, but neither can we discount them completely. @Oozlefinch, If we agree on the premise that the way for small businesses to compete with Walmart is through customer service, then we're also agreeing on the prior basic premise that Walmart causes difficulty for small businesses. It's not just the myth that everyone tells each other.

Paleocon said:
It depends on how you define "market".
Click to expand...
My second point jumps into your markets discussion. I've always considered markets to require competition. If there's no competition, it's just some schmuck selling to another schmuck, hardly a thing to dignify with the term market.
And by my definition, most sales of most things are within markets, obviously, but some situations fall outside those lines. Take for instance an exclusive contract to provide food services on a college campus. Sure, it has competition--students could just go off campus to eat. But what if they don't have time? What if they don't have money, if that matters in their case? The question of whether a business has competition or monopoly is not a fine line, but a big gray area, and is why they came up with the term monopoly leverage. The same applies to my anecdote of the local grocery store in Ennis, MT. It obviously has some monopoly leverage itself, being the only store in 50 miles. But another dimension is the monopoly leverage of Walmart that arguably prohibits other stores from starting since they know they wouldn't be able to compete anyway.

Given that I entered this discussion acknowledging the lack of evidence, I obviously can't now make any wider grand claims as to the competitive nature of Walmart, but I do think it's relevant to the discussion--I think markets require competition. And, too, I think most of us agree that commerce without competition generally leads to poor social outcomes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom