Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

LoreD

Dollar General

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

I'm not really seeing an issue with people promoting "Buy Local."  And I don't know why it is an issue with you.

 

There's no issue with people who want to buy local. Your money, your choice.  For the record, I don't shop at Walmart if I have any other option.  I only shop at DG because it's convenient.  I just want people to stop demonizing Walmart, DG, and the poor people who shop there.  I want communities to stop banning discount retailers.  Poor people need to shop too.

 

DG doesn't come to your neighborhood to make people poor.  It comes to your neighborhood because there are poor people there.  They go where their customers are...they don't create customers.  Demand creates supply.

 

20 hours ago, bludog said:

 

The only constant is change.  However malls are hardly dying off.   There is much new building of malls and plenty of retailers to fill them up.  I see it where I live.  Here, malls are flourishing.  A Sears recently went out of business in a mall very close-by and the space is now filled by a Pizza Pie Cafe which appears to be doing very well ...  They have a decent salad bar too, for those so inclined.

 

 

Some recent headlines:

Dying shopping malls are wreaking havoc on suburban America  

Here's what could happen to America's hundreds of dead malls 
America's malls are rotting away

The Observer Big, bold … and broken: is the US shopping mall in a fatal decline?

 

Macy's isn't dead yet, but they're struggling.  

Here are the stores Macy's is closing next       

Macy's Is Ready to Sell Half of Its Chicago Flagship Store

 

b5b7f13b6f90d8075bd918a85e9e10e1.png

 

Here's a list of some retailers closing stores in the US:  (2018 retail closings: The latest news)

735 Toys R Us 

20 J Crew

60 Abercrombie & Fitch

110 Footlocker

250 Best Buy Cell Phone Stores

8 J C Penney

42 Bon Ton

63 Sam's Club

11 Macy's

103 Sears & Kmart

200 Gap & Banana Republic

379 Teavana

 

In some areas, malls still do OK.  And, no, the big box isn't dead.  But, it doesn't conquer all either.  That was my point.  If you don't deliver what the customer wants, someone else will.

 

 

20 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Actually, upper management gleans most of the savings achieved by low wages.   Low wages constitute redistribution of wealth upward.   The only part of it that is "saved" gets secretly deposited in Swiss banks by Plutocrats for the purpose of illegally avoiding tax on their profits. 

 

 

Are you saying Walmart doesn't have lower prices?  Then why do people shop there?  They're certainly not going for the pleasant shopping experience.  

 

Are you saying that a typical Walmart worker makes less than the employees of 'mom & pop' grocery stores?   How can we validate that?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bludog said:

 

- snip -

The Shadow of Low, Low Prices
Almost every dollar spent super-shopping immediately leaves town for corporate headquarters out-of-state, never to re-circulate again in the local economy.

 

 

This article is full of emotional appeals and completely absent any honest logical analysis.   "Life blood lost",  "bleeding to death", "like a giant tick",  "innocents entering an opium den".   I don't see a single fact in the entire article.   They're not even talking about a real town.  It's a completely fictional account.

 

I had a teacher tell me "In a battle of reason vs. emotion, emotion always wins".  I refused to believe that.  I wanted to believe that we are rational creatures who make logical decisions based on facts.  The older I get, the more I begin to suspect that my belief in human rationality was an emotionally held opinion and that my teacher was right.  

 

I believe I could spend the next 2 hours linking in facts and picking this story apart, piece by piece, but even if I could, it would be a boring, dry, logical analysis and people would read just enough to see that I disagreed with their emotionally invested position.   I won't waste our time.

 

This isn't directed at you, bludog, but it just popped into my head.  A minor peeve of mine is people who don't make their own arguments on internet discussion boards.  I quote sources for facts, but I strive to make my own arguments with my own thoughts and my own logic.  I seek to be an independent thinker.  I get aggravated when someone answers my argument with a cut & paste argument from a book or blog or news article.  I can't argue with that person.  They're not here.  I can't ask them questions.  I can't get their reaction to data.  I can't get them to respond to my counter-arguments.  So, right or wrong, that bugs me just a little bit.  I find the online forum experience much more enjoyable when people do their own arguing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

I just want people to stop demonizing Walmart, DG, and the poor people who shop there.  I want communities to stop banning discount retailers.  Poor people need to shop too.[/quote]

 

This is reminding me of the argument where the Republicans offer a big tax cut for the rich, and get poor people to support by giving them a tiny tax cut also.

And then liberals argue why it's a terrible policy, and the people who get their $100 tax cut defend it, saying, hey they can use that money, not appreciating the huge cost.

There's nothing wrong with 'demonizing' the companies who are causing great harm, and being critical of the people who seem to support their doing do, not appreciating the harm in the name of saving a few bucks. Yes, it should be a 'fair and balanced' discussion, including the benefits they provide as well as the harm.

Just as the tax discussion should say both that the tiny tax cuts DO help the poorer people, as well as criticizing the harm of the huge tax cuts for the rich.

That's why I've wanted Democrats to respond to these bills by offering counter proposals that offer DOUBLE the tax cuts to most Americans, while offering NONE of the tax cuts to the rich (or even tax increases), that cost far less or nothing, instead of just opposing the bills. 

Play the damn game. Offer those voters who want the crumbs bigger crumbs and beat the Republicans at their own game.
 

 

Quote
Quote

 

 

Quote

 

DG doesn't come to your neighborhood to make people poor.  It comes to your neighborhood because there are poor people there.  They go where their customers are...they don't create customers.  Demand creates supply.[/quote]

 

 

Yet, on balance, they DO make people poorer. The $100 billion+ net worth of the Waltons wasn't created out of thin air. It was created by sucking that money out of local economies.

 

Just as the tax bill that gives you a $100 tax cut but adds trillions to the public debt to benefit the rich makes people poorer, costing far more than the tiny tax cut helps you. It FEELS good to get the $100, but the price is high - like a payday loan for $1000 that ends up costing you far more (but worse). That's the Republican lie and trick.


And it's not even as if this is some accident. Republicans are simply against the American people having more wealth, because they want to take that wealth for the rich, so they have

searched for ways to get that to happen.

They looked at Democrats from FDR offering to give people more - more education, more income, etc. - and said, well they can't defeat that. So instead, they decided since Reagan to

FORCE the government to cut spending on the American people by creating massive debt, where the interest sucks the budget from any other program (except military).

 

That way, there's no discussion about whether it's a good idea to expand healthcare - they can simply say, the budget has no room for it.

 

 

Are you saying that a typical Walmart worker makes less than the employees of 'mom & pop' grocery stores?   How can we validate that?   

 

One common sense thing to do is to look how much money is taken out of the community by the big box company. Listen to the economists who discuss the harm.

 

Quote

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

 

This article is full of emotional appeals and completely absent any honest logical analysis.   "Life blood lost",  "bleeding to death", "like a giant tick",  "innocents entering an opium den".   I don't see a single fact in the entire article.   They're not even talking about a real town.  It's a completely fictional account.

 

I had a teacher tell me "In a battle of reason vs. emotion, emotion always wins".  I refused to believe that.  I wanted to believe that we are rational creatures who make logical decisions based on facts.  The older I get, the more I begin to suspect that my belief in human rationality was an emotionally held opinion and that my teacher was right.  

 

I believe I could spend the next 2 hours linking in facts and picking this story apart, piece by piece, but even if I could, it would be a boring, dry, logical analysis and people would read just enough to see that I disagreed with their emotionally invested position.   I won't waste our time.

 

This isn't directed at you, bludog, but it just popped into my head.  A minor peeve of mine is people who don't make their own arguments on internet discussion boards.  I quote sources for facts, but I strive to make my own arguments with my own thoughts and my own logic.  I seek to be an independent thinker.  I get aggravated when someone answers my argument with a cut & paste argument from a book or blog or news article.  I can't argue with that person.  They're not here.  I can't ask them questions.  I can't get their reaction to data.  I can't get them to respond to my counter-arguments.  So, right or wrong, that bugs me just a little bit.  I find the online forum experience much more enjoyable when people do their own arguing.  


You are sure on a high horse about evidence and facts for someone who it's clear hasn't done any research on the topic.

 

Just google for studies on the topic. Here's one I found for this post in 5 seconds (I include the caveat how sometimes Walmart can provide benefits also):

 

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2405-real-cost-walmart.html

 

"

...another new report reveals exactly how much it costs a community in dollars and cents when Walmart comes to town.

The research, done by a Northwest community group, estimates that one Walmart store, which is set to open in a Washington neighborhood, will decrease the community's economic output over 20 years by an estimated $13 million. It also estimates the Walmart will cost the community an additional $14 million in lost wages over the next 20 years. 

"We know now the true economic impact a Walmart store has on a neighborhood when it moves in," Christopher Fowler, who conducted the research for Puget Sound Sage, said. "The research shows that the negative impact is due to the use of the Walmart business model. A new 'generic' grocery store does not equal economic harm, but a new Walmart does."

"When Walmart comes to town, it is going to reallocate sales and its impact is going to be a function of the difference between what is currently being paid in wages at the existing stores and what Walmart pays," Fowler said.

That redistribution in sales is estimated at $25 million annually, according to the research. This means that nearly $660,000 in wages is lost annually.   

"Walmart may say they help people 'Live Better,'" said David West, executive director of Puget Sound Sage, a nonprofit public policy organization that looks at regional economic issues. "But this study shows that communities will be much worse off, with lower wages and less money in the community, after a Walmart opens."

The losses are tied mainly to the low wages Walmart pays its employees.

"These impacts stem from the low wages Walmart pays to its hourly associates compared to the wages earned by comparable employees of existing retail grocery stores," the researchers said. "The difference in wages, which we estimate to be at least $3 per hour, has the capacity to impact not only the workers themselves, but also the people from whom they purchase goods and services."

One important caveat to this research: It applies only to areas where consumer demand for products is already being met. In areas where demand is not being met, however, there is a benefit to having a Walmart since it makes more products available to consumers, Fowler said.

"Walmart is able to offer lower prices than other small retailers and we would expect that to have an additional effect with both costs and benefits," Fowler said. "In some rural areas, it can be argued that Walmart is fulfilling unmet demands. The number of places in the country where people are currently unable to purchase groceries is limited, though.""

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

This article is full of emotional appeals and completely absent any honest logical analysis.   "Life blood lost",  "bleeding to death", "like a giant tick",  "innocents entering an opium den".   I don't see a single fact in the entire article.   They're not even talking about a real town.  It's a completely fictional account.

 

I had a teacher tell me "In a battle of reason vs. emotion, emotion always wins".  I refused to believe that.  I wanted to believe that we are rational creatures who make logical decisions based on facts.  The older I get, the more I begin to suspect that my belief in human rationality was an emotionally held opinion and that my teacher was right.  

 

I believe I could spend the next 2 hours linking in facts and picking this story apart, piece by piece, but even if I could, it would be a boring, dry, logical analysis and people would read just enough to see that I disagreed with their emotionally invested position.   I won't waste our time.

 

This isn't directed at you, bludog, but it just popped into my head.  A minor peeve of mine is people who don't make their own arguments on internet discussion boards.  I quote sources for facts, but I strive to make my own arguments with my own thoughts and my own logic.  I seek to be an independent thinker.  I get aggravated when someone answers my argument with a cut & paste argument from a book or blog or news article.  I can't argue with that person.  They're not here.  I can't ask them questions.  I can't get their reaction to data.  I can't get them to respond to my counter-arguments.  So, right or wrong, that bugs me just a little bit.  I find the online forum experience much more enjoyable when people do their own arguing.  

 

People can argue a point any way they want.  They don't have to please you. I found Blu's articles to be thoughtful and on point.  

 

You don't seem to be an independent thinker; just very rigid, and unable to accept other's opinions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:
On 4/22/2018 at 10:03 AM, bludog said:

 

Actually, upper management gleans most of the savings achieved by low wages.   Low wages constitute redistribution of wealth upward.   The only part of it that is "saved" gets secretly deposited in Swiss banks by Plutocrats for the purpose of illegally avoiding tax on their profits. 

 

 

Are you saying Walmart doesn't have lower prices?  Then why do people shop there?  They're certainly not going for the pleasant shopping experience. 

 

I said "most" of the savings, not all.  Most goes to upper management and the rest allows for low prices.  Obviously, as you have already said, lower prices attract customers who unwittingly pay for part of the upward movement of wealth into fewer hands.  In this case, the Walton family has, so far amassed: 

 

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 BILLION.

 

This one family, the Waltons, have a fortune equal to the bottom 42% of Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/08/one-wisconsin-now/just-how-wealthy-wal-mart-walton-family/

 

It is morally wrong that individuals or families are allowed to hog wealth like this to themselves without giving back an appreciable portion of it to the society which enabled them in the first place.  The public good 90% of this money could do is enormous.  Taxing the Waltons wealth at 90% would leave them with over 14 BILLION DOLLARS.  With a fabulous fortune of 14 billion, they would be set for life and be able to buy anything they could ever conceivably want ...  Mansions ....  luxuriously appointed jet planes ....  fabulous yachts, and so forth.   Taxing their wealth at 98% would leave them with almost 3 billion dollars ...  still enough for any conceivable desire.

 

With the exception maybe of buying government.  And no, individuals or families should not be able to control government.  Governmental policy should be determined with votes, not dollars.

 

Quote

Are you saying that a typical Walmart worker makes less than the employees of 'mom & pop' grocery stores?   How can we validate that?

 

Think about it.  It stands to reason that if most owners of 'mom & pop' grocery stores have usually not gotten fabulously rich, and haven't been able to appreciably expand their operations, they are probably paying their help better ...  Especially when that help is part of the family, which is a very common arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

I said "most" of the savings, not all.  Most goes to upper management and the rest allows for low prices.  Obviously, as you have already said, lower prices attract customers who unwittingly pay for part of the upward movement of wealth into fewer hands.  In this case, the Walton family has, so far amassed: 

 

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 BILLION.

 

This one family, the Waltons, have a fortune equal to the bottom 42% of Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/08/one-wisconsin-now/just-how-wealthy-wal-mart-walton-family/

 

It is morally wrong that individuals or families are allowed to hog wealth like this to themselves without giving back an appreciable portion of it to the society which enabled them in the first place.  The public good 90% of this money could do is enormous.  Taxing the Waltons wealth at 90% would leave them with over 14 BILLION DOLLARS.  With a fabulous fortune of 14 billion, they would be set for life and be able to buy anything they could ever conceivably want ...  Mansions ....  luxuriously appointed jet planes ....  fabulous yachts, and so forth.   Taxing their wealth at 98% would leave them with almost 3 billion dollars ...  still enough for any conceivable desire.

 

With the exception maybe of buying government.  And no, individuals or families should not be able to control government.  Governmental policy should be determined with votes, not dollars.

 

 

Think about it.  It stands to reason that if most owners of 'mom & pop' grocery stores have usually not gotten fabulously rich, and haven't been able to appreciably expand their operations, they are probably paying their help better ...  Especially when that help is part of the family, which is a very common arrangement.

 

This thread is showing how hard these issues are to discuss.

 

For one thing, they're a bit complicated. for example, on the one hand, there are plusses to Walmart - providing a larger variety of goods affordably, and they have a lot of efficiencies that cut cost in addition to the harmful ways they cut costs (explooting cheap foreign labor, using their power to squeeze suppliers to the point of bankruptcy, etc.)

 

On the other hand of course are the harms I won't repeat in this post.

 

I guess we need to recognize that if you have a Republican waving a dollar in people's faces with large hidden costs, and a liberal trying to warn them about the hidden costs, many people only care about the dollar. And so there are industries to take advantage of and exploit that - and to get the people to hate the liberals for trying to prevent them getting that dollar.

 

It's not rational. People will say they want their community prosperous - but they want to buy their stuff cheap from the big box retailer. They will say they want American prosperity, American jobs, American factories, American made, but they want to buy their stuff cheap from overseas. They just want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

Perhaps if unions and labor were more powerful, they could do more to educate the public - but their opponents, the wealthy and their servants the Republicans - have crippled labor.

 

Some people will view Walmart as a huge parasite on the country, and others as doing great good as the biggest employer - all those people making a living from them. They're both right.

 

But it's hard to get people informed and caring about the 'hidden' costs of an issue like this. They are blinded by the bit of savings.

 

We haven't even talked about Walmart as a leading enemy of labor. They have a 'response team' that swoops in to any store location where there are any rumblings of someone trying to unionize the workers - people are fired, stores are closed if needed, to prevent any unionizing.

 

What's sad is how many people are embracing plutocracy. They don't understand the economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bludog said:

 

I said "most" of the savings, not all.  Most goes to upper management and the rest allows for low prices.  Obviously, as you have already said, lower prices attract customers who unwittingly pay for part of the upward movement of wealth into fewer hands.  In this case, the Walton family has, so far amassed: 

 

No. 6 Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion

No. 7: Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion

No. 8: Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion

No. 9: S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion

No. 95: Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion

No. 110: Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion

Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 BILLION.

 

This one family, the Waltons, have a fortune equal to the bottom 42% of Americans.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/08/one-wisconsin-now/just-how-wealthy-wal-mart-walton-family/

 

It is morally wrong that individuals or families are allowed to hog wealth like this to themselves without giving back an appreciable portion of it to the society which enabled them in the first place.  The public good 90% of this money could do is enormous.  Taxing the Waltons wealth at 90% would leave them with over 14 BILLION DOLLARS.  With a fabulous fortune of 14 billion, they would be set for life and be able to buy anything they could ever conceivably want ...  Mansions ....  luxuriously appointed jet planes ....  fabulous yachts, and so forth.   Taxing their wealth at 98% would leave them with almost 3 billion dollars ...  still enough for any conceivable desire.

 

 

I have no argument with any of this.  I agree that tax rates on the highest earners are too low.  Saying taxes should be higher is not the same thing as saying Walmart should be banned from our towns.

 

19 hours ago, bludog said:

 

Think about it.  It stands to reason that if most owners of 'mom & pop' grocery stores have usually not gotten fabulously rich, and haven't been able to appreciably expand their operations, they are probably paying their help better ...  Especially when that help is part of the family, which is a very common arrangement.

 

You suppose that Mom & Pop 'probably' pay their help better.  Why do you think that?   Just because they haven't gotten rich?

 

Lower wages isn't the only way to have lower cost and therefore lower prices.  I don't have facts to prove this is how Walmart does it, but these are plausible alternatives to lower wages:

 

- Economy of scale (Large stores could be more efficient than small ones; Technology upgrades make more sense at scale; Purchase stock in larger quantities; etc.)

- Efficient logistics (Mom & Pop have to pay someone else to manage their logistics...Walmart does it in-house)

- Negotiating lower prices from suppliers (Mom & Pop don't have much negotiating power)

- Buying directly from suppliers instead of middlemen (Mom & Pop can't usually buy directly from the factory)

 

Incidentally, it's important to note that most of the money Mom & Pop spend on stock for their store...goes out of the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

People can argue a point any way they want.  They don't have to please you. I found Blu's articles to be thoughtful and on point.  

 

You don't seem to be an independent thinker; just very rigid, and unable to accept other's opinions.

 

 

I'm sorry, but that article really hit a nerve with me.  It was just as logical as a Sunday morning sermon from a Southern Baptist preacher.  Stray not from the path of righteousness!  Avoid the den of iniquity!  The wages of sin are death!   

 

You are correct that you can argue however you want.  It's like like we speak different languages and therefore we aren't able to communicate.  I have no right (or ability) to force you into my language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

This thread is showing how hard these issues are to discuss.

 

 

Very reasonable.  I would also add that the 'harms' are always concentrated while the 'benefits' are spread.   Mom & Pop get put out of business.  That's severe and personal harm.  On the other hand, the benefits are spread across thousands of people, each receiving only relatively small economic improvement.  It's very hard to weigh thousands of +1's against a few -100's and see what is best for the community.   

 

In a case like that, I prefer to let individuals make their own decisions.  Advocate for Mom & Pop, sure.  Outlaw Walmart, no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

I would also add that the 'harms' are always concentrated while the 'benefits' are spread.   Mom & Pop get put out of business.  That's severe and personal harm.  On the other hand, the benefits are spread across thousands of people, each receiving only relatively small economic improvement.  It's very hard to weigh thousands of +1's against a few -100's and see what is best for the community.   

 

In a case like that, I prefer to let individuals make their own decisions.  Advocate for Mom & Pop, sure.  Outlaw Walmart, no.

 

 

I hate to repeat this, but I think you are not understanding the size of the impacts. You continue to only look at a small part of the issue, and so you think the scales are weighed one way.

 

You really are not understanding the large impacts that are 'spread'. It's a lot more than the direct effect on the owners of small stores.

 

It doesn't sound like you did the basic research I suggested. But out of the many big harms, we haven't even hit on some such as the Waltons using that great wealth to influence our political system, buying politicians who serve them rather than the voters, and all the harm that causes - the $5 trillion tax heist recently just one.

 

'Advocating' for Mom & Pop both does nothing and Mom and Pop are only a small part of the issue. The big box stores are predatory and that's not understood.

 

I guess it's a little like the way liberals might criticize a mining company for low pay, lack of worker safety, polluting the environment, corrupting the government - but to the employees being harmed, they can see the company as their source of income and defend them and think the liberals are threatening their paychecks.

The mining company of course encourages that point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade said:

You suppose that Mom & Pop 'probably' pay their help better.

 

After some short research, I have to concede the point that there is more upward mobility in big box stores than small, locally owned operations.  On average, the big box stores pay more. 

 

That does not mitigate the fact that big box stores tend to fray the social fabric of communities ...  And after putting small operations out of business, sometimes move out themselves, creating food deserts.  Studies have shown that when big box stores move in,  criminal activity increases ...  As do rates of obesity.  And big box stores often seize inordinate power over government.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Saying taxes should be higher is not the same thing as saying Walmart should be banned from our towns.

 

It has been advocated elsewhere and Walmarts have actually been banned by some local governments.  But I never advocated banning Walmarts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

Very reasonable.  I would also add that the 'harms' are always concentrated while the 'benefits' are spread.   Mom & Pop get put out of business.  That's severe and personal harm.  On the other hand, the benefits are spread across thousands of people, each receiving only relatively small economic improvement.  It's very hard to weigh thousands of +1's against a few -100's and see what is best for the community.   

 

In a case like that, I prefer to let individuals make their own decisions.  Advocate for Mom & Pop, sure.  Outlaw Walmart, no.

 

 

 

What you call banning is actually local communities making decisions about the effect those businesses have on their community.  Zoning, licensing, etc. are all used to make these decisions.  In my previous hometown, they decided that the last undeveloped area could not be sold to developers, so the village refused to zone the land as residential.

 

A very religious community may decide that they don't want liquor stores or adult stores.  They don't zone for that.  Chicago decided to not allow stores to sell dogs and cats because of the overloaded shelters.   A community may decide to not approve Dollar stores or Big Box stores.  It all depends on community values.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

 

What you call banning is actually local communities making decisions about the effect those businesses have on their community.  Zoning, licensing, etc. are all used to make these decisions.  In my previous hometown, they decided that the last undeveloped area could not be sold to developers, so the village refused to zone the land as residential.

 

A very religious community may decide that they don't want liquor stores or adult stores.  They don't zone for that.  Chicago decided to not allow stores to sell dogs and cats because of the overloaded shelters.   A community may decide to not approve Dollar stores or Big Box stores.  It all depends on community values.

 

 

 

People should also be glad that this shows that their government is not paid off by those big box companies, and is possibly looking after them - assuming that it's not the businesses who would be hurt just doing it selfishly.

 

But isn't that how government works too much?

Different interested groups who try to outspend to influence the government, and the voters don't matter, but whatever they do, they'll say was for the voters.

 

'We banned Walmart for the good of the people'. 'We allowed Walmart for the good of the people'. But sometimes, there's some truth to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

I hate to repeat this, but I think you are not understanding the size of the impacts. You continue to only look at a small part of the issue, and so you think the scales are weighed one way.

 

You really are not understanding the large impacts that are 'spread'. It's a lot more than the direct effect on the owners of small stores.

 

It doesn't sound like you did the basic research I suggested. But out of the many big harms, we haven't even hit on some such as the Waltons using that great wealth to influence our political system, buying politicians who serve them rather than the voters, and all the harm that causes - the $5 trillion tax heist recently just one.

 

'Advocating' for Mom & Pop both does nothing and Mom and Pop are only a small part of the issue. The big box stores are predatory and that's not understood.

 

I guess it's a little like the way liberals might criticize a mining company for low pay, lack of worker safety, polluting the environment, corrupting the government - but to the employees being harmed, they can see the company as their source of income and defend them and think the liberals are threatening their paychecks.

The mining company of course encourages that point of view.

 

I was indeed looking at a small part of the issue.  I thought we were talking about the impact of DG on local communities (as presented in the OP).  The area of consideration seems to have expanded to include virtually all business in all locations through decades of time (mining, oil, Goldman Sachs, gasoline, Koch brothers, etc.).  I missed the transition. 

 

Everyone is influencing politicians.  they always have and they always will.  If that's your gripe against DG and Walmart, then I will concede that they probably do without even bothering to check.   Are they funding the wrong causes?  If they were funding Democrats, would their local actions be OK?  Is your gripe unique to DG and Walmart specifically, or is it against big business in general? 

 

I'm sure everyone understands all business is competitive (i.e. predatory).  Mom & Pop just hunt smaller fish in fewer numbers.  I can assure you that Mom & Pop are acutely aware of every competing business in their area, what they charge and what their strategy is.  They are continually seeking any advantage they can get, to include lobbying local government to restrict zoning or prohibit new competition like DG or Walmart.  What Big Business does at the national level (influence politicians for restrictive laws and tariffs), Little Business does at the local level.

 

I realize that 'everyone is doing it' doesn't justify bad behavior.  But it does call into questions why these particular businesses are singled out for behavior that's universal.  

 

Maybe we should start over?  If it's not too tiresome, please restate the nature of the complaint.  Depending on what it is, I will try to play the part of devil's advocate for the defense. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

What you call banning is actually local communities making decisions about the effect those businesses have on their community.  Zoning, licensing, etc. are all used to make these decisions.  In my previous hometown, they decided that the last undeveloped area could not be sold to developers, so the village refused to zone the land as residential.

 

A very religious community may decide that they don't want liquor stores or adult stores.  They don't zone for that.  Chicago decided to not allow stores to sell dogs and cats because of the overloaded shelters.   A community may decide to not approve Dollar stores or Big Box stores.  It all depends on community values.

 

 

 

This is all true.  But, I don't like it.  Communities ban liquor stores and adult stores because they don't want their customers.  Perhaps the same logic is at work with the Walmart bans.

 

Pop culture and the media have stereotyped Walmart customers as dirty, poor, rude, uncool, fat, stupid, uneducated, racist, unfashionable...basically 'trailer trash'.  That's just the opposite of who people want to have in their communities.  Since they can't outlaw poor people, they do the next best thing...ban the places where those people congregate:  Walmart and DG.  

 

Perhaps they can improve their property values by externalizing all the poor people?  If property values (and rents) go up, that will also drive away poor people.  Of course, the poor people will still be poor.  In fact they may be even poorer since they have no cheap place to shop.  So, maybe they will move.   If you eliminate all the cheap shopping in your community, you will indeed drive away poor people.  That's not the same thing as making them  richer. 

 

Have you noticed all the modern 'planned' communities going up?  All the homes have to be of at least a certain size (keeps out poor people).  Shops and stores are integrated into the community (so residents don't have to go outside and mingle with poor people).  They even have patrols that go around and make sure outsiders (poor people) aren't using the playgrounds and bike paths.  You'll also notice that there aren't a lot of Walmarts and DG stores in these communities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

I was indeed looking at a small part of the issue.  I thought we were talking about the impact of DG on local communities (as presented in the OP).  The area of consideration seems to have expanded to include virtually all business in all locations through decades of time (mining, oil, Goldman Sachs, gasoline, Koch brothers, etc.).  I missed the transition. 

 

Everyone is influencing politicians.  they always have and they always will.  If that's your gripe against DG and Walmart, then I will concede that they probably do without even bothering to check.   Are they funding the wrong causes?  If they were funding Democrats, would their local actions be OK?  Is your gripe unique to DG and Walmart specifically, or is it against big business in general? 

 

I'm sure everyone understands all business is competitive (i.e. predatory).  Mom & Pop just hunt smaller fish in fewer numbers.  I can assure you that Mom & Pop are acutely aware of every competing business in their area, what they charge and what their strategy is.  They are continually seeking any advantage they can get, to include lobbying local government to restrict zoning or prohibit new competition like DG or Walmart.  What Big Business does at the national level (influence politicians for restrictive laws and tariffs), Little Business does at the local level.

 

I realize that 'everyone is doing it' doesn't justify bad behavior.  But it does call into questions why these particular businesses are singled out for behavior that's universal.  

 

Maybe we should start over?  If it's not too tiresome, please restate the nature of the complaint.  Depending on what it is, I will try to play the part of devil's advocate for the defense. 

 

 

You're being quite the apologist for the worst sorts of corporate buying of our government - 'everyone does it, it's always been done, they're all equally predatory, why single them out'.

 

I'm up for some 'devil's advocate' - if they do the basic research I discussed first so they don't keep repeating things that need correction constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

Pop culture and the media have stereotyped Walmart customers as dirty, poor, rude, uncool, fat, stupid, uneducated, racist, unfashionable...basically 'trailer trash'.  That's just the opposite of who people want to have in their communities.  Since they can't outlaw poor people, they do the next best thing...ban the places where those people congregate:  Walmart and DG.  

 

Perhaps they can improve their property values by externalizing all the poor people?  If property values (and rents) go up, that will also drive away poor people.  Of course, the poor people will still be poor.  In fact they may be even poorer since they have no cheap place to shop.  So, maybe they will move.   If you eliminate all the cheap shopping in your community, you will indeed drive away poor people.  That's not the same thing as making them  richer. 

 

It sounds like we're getting to the real reason you are so defensive of Walmart - and those are other issues. You're being blinded to the real harms Walmart does, in order to protect the poor people from the other things you are offended by - the insults, the stereotypes, whatever. You see a victory for Walmart as a victory for the poor...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

This is all true.  But, I don't like it.  Communities ban liquor stores and adult stores because they don't want their customers.  Perhaps the same logic is at work with the Walmart bans.

 

Pop culture and the media have stereotyped Walmart customers as dirty, poor, rude, uncool, fat, stupid, uneducated, racist, unfashionable...basically 'trailer trash'.  That's just the opposite of who people want to have in their communities.  Since they can't outlaw poor people, they do the next best thing...ban the places where those people congregate:  Walmart and DG.  

 

Perhaps they can improve their property values by externalizing all the poor people?  If property values (and rents) go up, that will also drive away poor people.  Of course, the poor people will still be poor.  In fact they may be even poorer since they have no cheap place to shop.  So, maybe they will move.   If you eliminate all the cheap shopping in your community, you will indeed drive away poor people.  That's not the same thing as making them  richer. 

 

Have you noticed all the modern 'planned' communities going up?  All the homes have to be of at least a certain size (keeps out poor people).  Shops and stores are integrated into the community (so residents don't have to go outside and mingle with poor people).  They even have patrols that go around and make sure outsiders (poor people) aren't using the playgrounds and bike paths.  You'll also notice that there aren't a lot of Walmarts and DG stores in these communities.  

 

No, they don't want what these businesses represent.  The effects of certain businesses on communities is what local zoning is about.  A small community may decide they want to protect their local businesses.  Local people, and local government, have the the right to decide the future of their communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LoreD said:

 

No, they don't want what these businesses represent.  The effects of certain businesses on communities is what local zoning is about.  A small community may decide they want to protect their local businesses.  Local people, and local government, have the the right to decide the future of their communities.

 

Unless you're poor.  Poor folks don't do a very good job of lobbying the zoning commission.  They don't make donations to the city council members' campaign funds.  They don't attend fundraisers.  They don't belong to the Chamber of Commerce.   They just get the shaft when the local business community decides to zone them out.   

 

19 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

It sounds like we're getting to the real reason you are so defensive of Walmart - and those are other issues. You're being blinded to the real harms Walmart does, in order to protect the poor people from the other things you are offended by - the insults, the stereotypes, whatever. You see a victory for Walmart as a victory for the poor...

 

That's pretty close.   It's not just the insults and stereotypes though.  There is also real economic harm done to the poor when low cost shopping and housing are eliminated from large areas of our cities.   

 

On 4/24/2018 at 11:08 AM, bludog said:

 

  And after putting small operations out of business, sometimes move out themselves, creating food deserts. 

 

I want to focus on this specific point.  Whenever I hear about 'food deserts', I've countered with the question about illegal drugs.  How is it that you can get  illegal drugs in a place, but not healthy food?  My theory is that demand creates supply.  If people want drugs, suppliers will find a way to provide them.  Why would food be different?

 

I apologize if this has already been answered and I've forgotten.  I forget things.  Really, I do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the battle waged by small towns for years. It all comes down to buying power and resources which small towns tend not to have. I try to buy local but in the end, limited resources and limited budget sway my decisions more than warm and fuzzy sentiments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

I want to focus on this specific point.  Whenever I hear about 'food deserts', I've countered with the question about illegal drugs.  How is it that you can get  illegal drugs in a place, but not healthy food?  My theory is that demand creates supply.  If people want drugs, suppliers will find a way to provide them.  Why would food be different?

 

 

One issue is that poorer people tend to accept 'crap' food - processed junk food - instead of fresh food. So Doritos instead of fruit. The economics work to gt them Doritos, and they eat it, so there you go. They don't have the money for more expensive fresh food, look at how you talk about the cheaper diapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Renegade said:

 

Unless you're poor.  Poor folks don't do a very good job of lobbying the zoning commission.  They don't make donations to the city council members' campaign funds.  They don't attend fundraisers.  They don't belong to the Chamber of Commerce.   They just get the shaft when the local business community decides to zone them out.   

 

 

That's pretty close.   It's not just the insults and stereotypes though.  There is also real economic harm done to the poor when low cost shopping and housing are eliminated from large areas of our cities.   

 

 

I want to focus on this specific point.  Whenever I hear about 'food deserts', I've countered with the question about illegal drugs.  How is it that you can get  illegal drugs in a place, but not healthy food?  My theory is that demand creates supply.  If people want drugs, suppliers will find a way to provide them.  Why would food be different?

 

I apologize if this has already been answered and I've forgotten.  I forget things.  Really, I do.  

 

 

I'm not really seeing your point.  

 

I started the thread in response to Dollar Generals moving into  rural areas.  Walmart and Dollar stores are not the Great Protectors of the Poor.  If you go into poor urban areas you will see a lineup of convenience stores, Dollar stores, liquor stores, and fast food chains.  No sign of a grocery store.

 

Walmart and Dollar stores have driven small community groceries out of business, and then closed their stores. Leaving entire communities without access to fresh food.

 

The danger of these stores is they lack loyalty to the community.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade said:

I want to focus on this specific point.  Whenever I hear about 'food deserts', I've countered with the question about illegal drugs.  How is it that you can get  illegal drugs in a place, but not healthy food?  My theory is that demand creates supply.  If people want drugs, suppliers will find a way to provide them.  Why would food be different?

 

Could it be that poor folks are stereotyped by the media as the Nation's leading drug users?   It's more sensational (and often racist) to show people neglecting their nutritional needs, in a food desert, while shooting and snorting drugs than it is to show affluent types doing the same.   Actually the entire nation is experiencing an epidemic of both legal and illegal drug abuse.

 

Drugs are far more portable than food.  They are far lighter, less bulky and a large supply can be transported in a car.  They are so small and light that a pusher or two can supply a neighborhood without owning a store.   And, like most junk foods, drugs require no refrigeration and have a long shelf life.  So the demand for drugs can be satisfied much more quickly than a demand for fresh food.

 

And if people have become habitually accustomed to junk food, often fresh food sellers can't compete.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...