Liberals and Walmart

[Oozlefinch]

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.

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.

 

[Lursa]

Neighborhoods, communities are not static, change has occurred continually during that 10 yrs. Surrounding stores and amenities fill gaps, community demographics change, chambers of commerce respond to downturns and offer incentives, infrastructure improvements, etc etc.

 

[notquiteright]

Oh there are a few 'brain dead' PUBs ranting about the E-viles of big box stores in small towns. Most local Chambers of Commerce bemoan the 'desertification' of main street when a Walmart opens on the outskirts of a small town.

I'm reminded of the collectivization of small private farms by the Bolshevist overlords in the Ukraine. Small farms are wiped out and the former land owners are now minimum wage employees of a distant overlord. No effort is made to fit the policies to the local customs and conditions. Instead of a dozen families churning the small store profits in town the profits are sent to a far off board so they never lack for a winter home in Boca Raton.... eace

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oh there are a few 'brain dead' PUBs ranting about the E-viles of big box stores in small towns. Most local Chambers of Commerce bemoan the 'desertification' of main street when a Walmart opens on the outskirts of a small town.

I'm reminded of the collectivization of small private farms by the Bolshevist overlords in the Ukraine. Small farms are wiped out and the former land owners are now minimum wage employees of a distant overlord. No effort is made to fit the policies to the local customs and conditions. Instead of a dozen families churning the small store profits in town the profits are sent to a far off board so they never lack for a winter home in Boca Raton.... eace

Am I really seeing a comparison here in a big box store, and the evils of Communism?

Small fact here. The "dessertification" of main street started over half a century ago, when automobiles allowed people to move into the suburbs. By the 1970's most "main street" areas were already a desert, because of people moving to the suburbs. This is absolutely nothing new, and had been going on long before the big box stores even appeared on the horizon in the 1980's. Even by 1975 you could walk the downtown streets in cities like Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Boise, Portland, Salt Lake City, and see huge numbers of closed up stores as the business flooded to the "Shopping Malls".

And I know because I did a lot of that walking in such towns in the 1970's.

Now, they are simply moving from the malls to big box stores. And now you have malls closing up all over as the high rents are no longer affordable and sales are shrinking.

Myself, I prefer to buy local when I can, I always have. But sometimes there is little choice but to go to a chain operation. They at least tend to have a variety, instead of a small operation where I may have a choice of 5 items of 2 brands.

 

[longview]

I think the Walmart small town story is not all black and white, but many shades of grey.
Walmart's location practices have been predatory, and forced many small businesses to close.
At the same time, a Walmart in a small town likely reduces the cost of living and helps make a
better quality of life.
The small store owners cannot compete with the bulk buying power of walmart,
which might sell some things at a lower price than the store owner pays.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I think the Walmart small town story is not all black and white, but many shades of grey.
Walmart's location practices have been predatory, and forced many small businesses to close.
At the same time, a Walmart in a small town likely reduces the cost of living and helps make a
better quality of life.
The small store owners cannot compete with the bulk buying power of walmart,
which might sell some things at a lower price than the store owner pays.

Not always true. Walmart is simply a store, with prices generally set from the corporate level.

Local businesses can continue, if they continue to place the customers first.

Let me tell a quick story here. From 2003-2007, I worked for a small computer store in a 130,000 population community. The business had been around for about 10 years, and was very succesful. There were 4 or 5 other similar stores in the area. And in 2006, they opened a Best Buy. A lot of people were going that the "big box" was going to kill us, with their Geek Squad a cut rate prices. But we did not worry.

It is now 2016, and the store is still flourishing. Meanwhile, most of the others are gone.

The difference? Well, we literally did place the customer first. We sold our items at fair prices, and our service was top knotch. It often shocked people when we would down-sell them, telling them they did not need an item they were looking at, when a lower priced one would fit their needs. We also would often not charge for basic labor work, like simply installing a new modem or power supply. 10 minutes to swap? No charge, just pay for the part and come back when you really need something major done.

Our customers were very loyal to us, and they still are to this day. And many who bought a computer at the big box would come back a year or so later when they realized it was not as good of a deal as they thought, and when they saw the price Best Buy wanted to charge them to fix it.

That is how you compete with the big box stores. And to give an idea, the same computer I built there for myself in 2006 is still going strong today. I doubt more then 2 in 10 of those sold at the big box store can make that claim.

Most small businesses close not because of the competition itself, but because they were not good enough to stand up to the competition. That is their own fault.

And it can have nothing to do with advertising. The store I work at never spent a dollar in advertising. Word of mouth was our primary source of new customers.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

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.

Easy (and its not an argument of "having it both ways"...).

"The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impact of Wal-Mart stores on local and national economies – including jobs, taxes, wages, benefits, manufacturing and existing retail businesses – shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and labor benefits contributing to the current decline of good middle class jobs, pushes out more retail jobs than it creates, and results in more retail vacancies. There is no indication that smaller “urban” Wal-Mart stores scattered throughout a dense city in any way diminish these negative trends. Rather, such developments may actually result in more widespread economic disruption.

1. Wal-Mart’s Economic Impacts: Net Loss of Jobs, Fewer Small Businesses
• Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every county they enter.6
• Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market does not increase overall retail activity or employment opportunities. Research from Chicago shows retail employment did not increase in Wal-Mart’s zip code, and fell significantly in those adjacent.
• Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers. Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wal-Mart moves in.9 Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of business. After a single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 306 small businesses in the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by March 2008.10
• The value of Wal-Mart to the economy will likely be less than the value of the jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future impact of Wal-Mart on the grocery industry in California found that, “the full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.”11
• Chain stores, like Wal-Mart send most of their revenues out of the community, while local businesses keep more consumer dollars in the local economy: for every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy while chain stores only left $43 to re-circulate locally.12"



Now combine this with poverty wages and as you can hopefully infer using logical reasoning, that this combination is not good for the local economy...


"3. Wal-Mart’s low paying jobs contribute to the decline of the middle class
• Median household income declined by 1.8% nationally and 4.1% in New York City in 2009.17 This decline will be exacerbated by low paying Wal-Mart jobs.
• Wal-Mart’s average annual pay of $20,774 is below the Federal Poverty Level for a family of four.18
• A Wal-Mart spokesperson publicly acknowledged in 2004 that, "More than two thirds of our people... are not trying to support a family. That’s who our jobs are designed for.”19
• Wal-Mart’s 2010 health care offerings have a high annual deductible of $4,400 which means a family would have to spend $5,102 of their own money on health care before Wal-Mart’s insurance pays anything. Based on the average salary of a Wal-Mart employee this payment represents almost 25% of their annual income.20"

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ccpd/repository/files/walmart.pdf


Also its not just "liberals" who refuse to shop at Walmart. I know a good chunk of conservatives who hate the place as well...

 

[longview]

Not always true. Walmart is simply a store, with prices generally set from the corporate level.

Local businesses can continue, if they continue to place the customers first.

Let me tell a quick story here. From 2003-2007, I worked for a small computer store in a 130,000 population community. The business had been around for about 10 years, and was very succesful. There were 4 or 5 other similar stores in the area. And in 2006, they opened a Best Buy. A lot of people were going that the "big box" was going to kill us, with their Geek Squad a cut rate prices. But we did not worry.

It is now 2016, and the store is still flourishing. Meanwhile, most of the others are gone.

The difference? Well, we literally did place the customer first. We sold our items at fair prices, and our service was top knotch. It often shocked people when we would down-sell them, telling them they did not need an item they were looking at, when a lower priced one would fit their needs. We also would often not charge for basic labor work, like simply installing a new modem or power supply. 10 minutes to swap? No charge, just pay for the part and come back when you really need something major done.

Our customers were very loyal to us, and they still are to this day. And many who bought a computer at the big box would come back a year or so later when they realized it was not as good of a deal as they thought, and when they saw the price Best Buy wanted to charge them to fix it.

That is how you compete with the big box stores. And to give an idea, the same computer I built there for myself in 2006 is still going strong today. I doubt more then 2 in 10 of those sold at the big box store can make that claim.

Most small businesses close not because of the competition itself, but because they were not good enough to stand up to the competition. That is their own fault.

And it can have nothing to do with advertising. The store I work at never spent a dollar in advertising. Word of mouth was our primary source of new customers.

I agree that some type of stores can compete, but on basic retail stuff, the small store would have
to demonstrate at least the perception of something better than just price.
It's like the difference between an Ace hardware and a Lowes, the Ace is likely a littler higher,
but may be closer, and have someone who may be able to answer your questions.

 

[cpwill]

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.

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.

The important thing to understand is, Wal-Mart isn't unionized.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Now combine this with poverty wages and as you can hopefully infer using logical reasoning, that this combination is not good for the local economy...

"Poverty wage"? The average starting wage is $8 an hour, higher then the minimum wage. And they have regular raises after that. In California they were already starting employees at $10 an hour, when the state wage was $9. When the state raised it's wage in January to $10, they were going to increase it to starting at $11, just to stay competitive.

So tell me, what is a "non-poverty wage"? What should we start entry level employees with limited skills at? Good luck at going to most "mom and pop" places and getting a starting wage of $1 more an hour over minimum.

And that study, great. One of the first things I noticed however. Where was the control?

Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers. Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wal-Mart moves in. Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of business. After a single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 306 small businesses in the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by March 2008.

Well so freaking what? I am not brain dead, and I remember that in 2008 we had one of the worst economies in the last quarter of a century. How about showing a similar statistic, and seeing how many other businesses closed in an area far away from the Walmart? How about giving us a breakdown of what those businesses were? This is nothing but targeted nonsense, not even trying to give us any comparisons to let somebody make an informed decision.

Now if it went something like "In 3 miles of the store X number of Y businesses closed. But 25 miles away they had a rate of G number of A businesses close", then somebody can make an informed decision, seeing if there is a real difference being made by the store. But knowing the national economy in 2008, knowing that 82 of 306 businesses closing does not sound all that unusual.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The important thing to understand is, Wal-Mart isn't unionized.

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.

 

[notquiteright]

Am I really seeing a comparison here in a big box store, and the evils of Communism? Small fact here. The "dessertification" of main street started over half a century ago, when automobiles allowed people to move into the suburbs. By the 1970's most "main street" areas were already a desert, because of people moving to the suburbs. This is absolutely nothing new, and had been going on long before the big box stores even appeared on the horizon in the 1980's. Even by 1975 you could walk the downtown streets in cities like Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Boise, Portland, Salt Lake City, and see huge numbers of closed up stores as the business flooded to the "Shopping Malls". And I know because I did a lot of that walking in such towns in the 1970's. Now, they are simply moving from the malls to big box stores. And now you have malls closing up all over as the high rents are no longer affordable and sales are shrinking. Myself, I prefer to buy local when I can, I always have. But sometimes there is little choice but to go to a chain operation. They at least tend to have a variety, instead of a small operation where I may have a choice of 5 items of 2 brands.

You confuse white flight social reorientation of the 70's from larger cities with small town main street desertification of the 90's. Folks didn't leave small towns like they did inner cities during the era of Walmart expansion. (why would a Walmart move into a small town that is being abandoned?) I missed walking around cities in the 70's, was overseas.

I'm talking about Alva OK, pop 4945 in 2010, got a Walmart in 1984, or Guymon ok, pop 11,442, how about Hobart ok, pop 3705, maybe Hugo OK, pop 5310.... there are many, many more. They weren't losing to some mall, or experiencing white flight out of their inner city...

Now back to the brain dead for a minute, the local chambers are not liberal and they have a few complaints about Walmart.

Just wanted to point out you leave out quite a few 'brain dead' folks by trying to dump this in liberal laps....

And I loved being able to use collective farms in a Walmart story... eace

 

[Mark F]

The argument is that Wal-Mart comes in to a community and builds a store which then drives the long-established local stores out of business. Wal-Mart then shuts down leaving the community with no local grocery/general merchandise stores at all. With the latest round of closings there are some communities where this is happening.

 

[notquiteright]

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.

I have a few dirty facts as well. Here in Lawton Ok the non union stores put a great deal of pressure on employees to not unionize. Going Union wouldn't stop part-time or seasonal employees, no idea where you get that. I know the manager of Sam's, an assistant in one of the 3 walmarts Lawton has and many TLs and TMs in the Target. The employees see an anti-union video as part of their hiring process, and anyone talking about Unions gets a bad review. Many workers quit because they feel there is no meaningful way to address long standing issues, like how hours are allotted to the workers, training, long range planning. Difficult to address such issues one against the entire management team. The big box stores in Lawton lack 'decent' benefits so the bad ol' state of Kalifornica might get credit for better labor conditions than a generous owner... eace

 

[faithful_servant]

Easy (and its not an argument of "having it both ways"...).

"The overwhelming weight of the independent research on the impact of Wal-Mart stores on local and national economies – including jobs, taxes, wages, benefits, manufacturing and existing retail businesses – shows that Wal-Mart depresses area wages and labor benefits contributing to the current decline of good middle class jobs, pushes out more retail jobs than it creates, and results in more retail vacancies. There is no indication that smaller “urban” Wal-Mart stores scattered throughout a dense city in any way diminish these negative trends. Rather, such developments may actually result in more widespread economic disruption.

1. Wal-Mart’s Economic Impacts: Net Loss of Jobs, Fewer Small Businesses
• Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every county they enter.6
• Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market does not increase overall retail activity or employment opportunities. Research from Chicago shows retail employment did not increase in Wal-Mart’s zip code, and fell significantly in those adjacent.
• Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers. Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wal-Mart moves in.9 Stores near a new Wal-Mart are at increased risk of going out of business. After a single Wal-Mart opened in Chicago in September 2006, 82 of the 306 small businesses in the surrounding neighborhood had gone out of business by March 2008.10
• The value of Wal-Mart to the economy will likely be less than the value of the jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future impact of Wal-Mart on the grocery industry in California found that, “the full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.”11
• Chain stores, like Wal-Mart send most of their revenues out of the community, while local businesses keep more consumer dollars in the local economy: for every $100 spent in locally owned businesses, $68 stayed in the local economy while chain stores only left $43 to re-circulate locally.12"



Now combine this with poverty wages and as you can hopefully infer using logical reasoning, that this combination is not good for the local economy...


"3. Wal-Mart’s low paying jobs contribute to the decline of the middle class
• Median household income declined by 1.8% nationally and 4.1% in New York City in 2009.17 This decline will be exacerbated by low paying Wal-Mart jobs.
• Wal-Mart’s average annual pay of $20,774 is below the Federal Poverty Level for a family of four.18
• A Wal-Mart spokesperson publicly acknowledged in 2004 that, "More than two thirds of our people... are not trying to support a family. That’s who our jobs are designed for.”19
• Wal-Mart’s 2010 health care offerings have a high annual deductible of $4,400 which means a family would have to spend $5,102 of their own money on health care before Wal-Mart’s insurance pays anything. Based on the average salary of a Wal-Mart employee this payment represents almost 25% of their annual income.20"

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/ccpd/repository/files/walmart.pdf


Also its not just "liberals" who refuse to shop at Walmart. I know a good chunk of conservatives who hate the place as well...

That's just explaining why WM is bad for a town when it arrives. The question was why do liberals cry when WM leaves a town. Answer the question that was asked instead of just seeing the opportunity to jump on your soapbox and copy/paste a rant...

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's just explaining why WM is bad for a town when it arrives. The question was why do liberals cry when WM leaves a town. Answer the question that was asked instead of just seeing the opportunity to jump on your soapbox and copy/paste a rant...

Once Walmart becomes part of the towns economy, while it seems to be worse than what it was before Walmart sets up shop, the Walmart does still become part of the local economy and represents another loss to the town when it leaves. The town gets double-whammied essentially.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

"

Well you already ignored about 90% of the post.....

Poverty wage"? The average starting wage is $8 an hour

Making $8 an hour is still a poverty wage...

And they have regular raises after that.

And... Now lets look at their annual salary... "Wal-Mart’s average annual pay of $20,774".. So much for those raises you were speaking.. :roll:

So tell me, what is a "non-poverty wage"?

A wage when working full time that ensures you are not in poverty...

What should we start entry level employees with limited skills at? Good luck at going to most "mom and pop" places and getting a starting wage of $1 more an hour over minimum.

Wait...

And that study, great. One of the first things I noticed however. Where was the control?

Its an analysis not an experiment...

Well so freaking what?

So you agree that Wal-Marts are generally not good for local economies?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I am not brain dead, and I remember that in 2008 we had one of the worst economies in the last quarter of a century. How about showing a similar statistic, and seeing how many other businesses closed in an area far away from the Walmart? How about giving us a breakdown of what those businesses were? This is nothing but targeted nonsense, not even trying to give us any comparisons to let somebody make an informed decision.

Still not answering to many of the other points raised.
"Wal-Mart store openings kill three local jobs for every two they create by reducing retail employment by an average of 2.7 percent in every county they enter"
"Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market does not increase overall retail activity or employment opportunities.7 Research from Chicago shows retail employment did not increase in Wal-Mart’s zip code, and fell significantly in those adjacent. "
"Wal-Mart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers.8 Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected sectors, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Wal-Mart moves in."

But more studies showing the negative impact Walmart has one local businesses.

"This study examined the impact of Walmart on several Iowa communities. It found that 84% of all sales at the new Walmart stores came at the expense of existing businesses within the same county. Only 16 percent of sales came from outside the county—a finding which refutes the notion that Walmart can act as a magnet drawing customers from a wide area and benefiting other businesses in town. “Although some suggest that the presence of Walmart outside of, but near to, the downtown area results in additional activity downtown, both sales data and traffic data do not show this gain,” the study concludes. “None of the nine case studies was experiencing a high enough level of population and income growth to absorb the Walmart store without losses to other businesses.” The study documents losses in downtown stores after Walmart opened. “General merchandise stores were most affected,” the study notes. “Other types of stores that closed include: automotive stores, hardware stores, drug stores, apparel stores, and sporting goods stores.” The supposed tax benefits of Walmart did not materialize either: “Although the local tax base added about $2 million with each Walmart, the decline in retail stores following the opening had a depressing effect on property values in downtowns and on shopping strips, offsetting gains from the Walmart property.”



"when Walmart opens a giant store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize or close. This study of Walmart’s impact on Iowa towns found that the average superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a year in sales (as of 1995), while stores in smaller towns nearby also suffered substantial revenue losses. These sales losses resulted in the closure of 7,326 Iowa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns that gained a Walmart store initially experienced a rise in overall retail sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales began to decline. About one in four towns ending up with a lower level of retail activity than they had prior to Walmart’s arrival. Stone attributes this to Walmart’s strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores." http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/faculty/stone/1995_IA_WM_Study.pdf

"The employment results indicate that a Wal-Mart store opening reduces county-level retail employment by about 150 workers" http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dneumark/walmart.pdf

"Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected by Walmart openings, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Walmart opens." https://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/marketing/archive/WorkshopPapers/hansen.pdf

"in the immediate vicinity of the Wal-Mart location about 25 percent of competing businesses closed in this first year... A business in the immediate proximity of Wal-Mart had about a 40 percent chance of closing some time over the two year period." http://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=curl_pubs

"research by the economic consulting firm Civic Economics has found that, when locally owned businesses are replaced by big-box stores, dollars that once circulated in the community, supporting other businesses and jobs, instead leak out. These shifts may explain the findings of another study, published in Social Science Quarterly in 2006, which cut straight to the bottom line: neighborhoods where Walmart opens end up with higher poverty rates and more food-stamp usage than places where the retailer does not expand." https://ilsr.org/walmarts-death-grip-food-system-intensifying-poverty/

 

[Ntharotep]

I've never been able to determine if it was a liberal or conservative who coined the bumper sticker "Wal-Mart: Destroying America One Small Business at a Time"
I mean. Yeah, liberals tend to be against big corps, but Conservatives are supposed to want things to stay like the good 'ol days with mom and pop shops on every corner, a church for every backyard, etc.
So I am torn on the origins but I do tend to think it sucks that smaller stores or even better stores have trouble competing.
It isn't only a "oh no its a big corporation it must go" thing for me. Its also that these big corporations tend to have crap poor service as well.
But people have to survive. And the idea that when my favorite mom and pop deli closes that I will stop eating deli meats because I can only get them at Wal-Mart is a little ludicrous really.
Its like saying "Well you don't think that corporations should make too much money on life saving drugs so you should stop taking the life saving drug and die out of protest". The logic doesn't work there.
Before its face lift, our local Wal-Mart has a big red star on the side of the building which I always found amusingly apropos...

 

[Lursa]

Dont want 'poverty wages?' Be capable of earning more than 'poverty wages.'

 

[TheDemSocialist]

That's just explaining why WM is bad for a town when it arrives. The question was why do liberals cry when WM leaves a town. Answer the question that was asked instead of just seeing the opportunity to jump on your soapbox and copy/paste a rant...

Because they just got ****ed twice. As 'tacomancer' said, "double-whammied".

 

[Lursa]

Not sure if it's been mentioned or if it's esp. relevant (but it probably is), most of the stores closing are smaller WMs that were using a different business model than their giant stores in most of the country. They were designed as an atttempt to reach a more urban/suburban centralized demographic, bringing that 'super value' with more 'houseware-oriented' products to those people. (I'm not framing that well).

 

[Lursa]

Once Walmart becomes part of the towns economy, while it seems to be worse than what it was before Walmart sets up shop, the Walmart does still become part of the local economy and represents another loss to the town when it leaves. The town gets double-whammied essentially.

Where are the sources describing how towns/communities are worse off when they leave? I may have missed this.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Making $8 an hour is still a poverty wage...

I ignore 90% of your post, because it is simply coprolite. But I will answer this one.

Not in most of the country it is not. Now I do not know where you live, or where you lived in the past. But I have lived in communities with a population of around 8,000, and in communities with a population of over 12 million. It is all relative, depending on where you live.

Big cities are more expensive, and cost more. Small towns are much less expensive, and cost a lot less. That is a big reason why most companies like to set up things like factories and warehouses if they can in smaller communities. Look at the auto plants that have gone up in the last 25 years. They are not going up in places like Detroit and Los Angeles. They are going in places like Montgomery and Greenville, Alabama.

This is pure and simple economics. They can pay less, because the standard of living is less. But they still pay more then the going wage in the community, which reduces the need or desire to unionize in the first place.

This is no longer the early 1900's. Companies today realize that if they take care of their employees, they will be happy and see no reason to unionize. But the pro-union slugs do not see that. Union membership is plumeting because of many reasons, mostly because the companies themselves now see it profitable to take care of their employees. Look at the companies all across the country that do not unionize at all. And ironically, the unions say nothing about it.

Apple is actually one of the most anti-union companies in the country. All managers actually are required to take "union awareness" training, to stamp out any talk of unionizing before it can even get started. So yes, there are no unions at Apple, the company with the highest profit margins and stop prices in the world. And the same with Microsoft, Cisco, and as far as I can think of every single Dot Com in the country.

Apple makes larger profits and has higher priced shares then Walmart by a long shot. Yet, the unions give them a free pass. Why? Logically, they would be a huge target, but they are ignored. Maybe because they are seen by many as a "Liberal" friendly company?

I can only assume you have never lived in a small town. When I lived in Alabama, even pizza delivery drivers could buy and finance a new car. $9 is crap in say Los Angeles or New York, but if your rent is in the $300-400 range, that is a pretty damned good wage. One of the things I hated about returning to California was seeing 60+% of my wage going to just rent, instead of the 30% or so that it had been for the previous 10 years.

I had more disposable income at $12 an hour in Alabama, then I did at $20 an hour in LA.

So I am torn on the origins but I do tend to think it sucks that smaller stores or even better stores have trouble competing.

Actually, I think the loosers whenever any "big box" store moves into an area is the marginal stores.

I gave a classic example. I actually talked to my old boss earlier today (he called me with a computer question), and from all of the stores in the area in 2006, he is the only one left (but there are 3 others that started since then, and 5 or 6 that came and went). Most of those that failed sacrificed quality for price. That is good for the "churn business", but it does not last long term. Especially in a small community, where people remember where they bought substandard crap that failed to soon.

Think of any busniess. From auto repair to car stereo installers to appliance sales and bakeries. A succesful business will keep it's customers. A business that puts profit before all else and delivers sub-quality service will more then likely close. A big box does not destroy good businesses. No more then a McDonalds or other fast food place will kill a quality restaurant. But it will kill the crap ones, I have no doubt of that.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Dont want 'poverty wages?' Be capable of earning more than 'poverty wages.'

Exactly. I have not made "minimum wage" since I was 17 years old.

I the last time I made mimimum wage was when I was 17. RLiterally within weeks of turning 18, I saw my first raise at a fast food place. From $3.35 to $3.85.

If you are still making minimum wage after 3-4 months on a job, you need to quite or figure out what you are doing wrong so you can get a raise.

Not sure if it's been mentioned or if it's esp. relevant (but it probably is), most of the stores closing are smaller WMs that were using a different business model than their giant stores in most of the country. They were designed as an atttempt to reach a more urban/suburban centralized demographic, bringing that 'super value' with more 'houseware-oriented' products to those people. (I'm not framing that well).

So true.

Most of the closures are "Neighborhood Markets", in other words stores that are little more then grocery stores. The majority of the rest are old-style "Walmarts", built in the 1980's or earilier. Non-24 hour stores, not "Super Centers". And most of the time, those will eventually be replaced by a Super Center.

But my interest was about this strange thing by what I call the "brain dead" (notice not all Liberals), who both curse when one opens, then again when they close.

Where are the sources describing how towns/communities are worse off when they leave? I may have missed this.

Personally, I do not think that is the case. But every time a Walmart tries to open, many on the far side scream it is going to kill business.

Then make the same claim when it closes. I myself do not believe it, which is why the question for those to justify that claim.