5 ms·

> Amazon or Walmart, on the other hand... Some of these disruptive industries make a lot of people poorer by driving businesses into bankruptcy. Amazon and Wal

by wtbob 11y ago

> Amazon or Walmart, on the other hand... Some of these disruptive industries make a lot of people poorer by driving businesses into bankruptcy. Amazon and Walmart make the poor richer, because they need spend a smaller proportion of their incomes on food & goods. That's why Amazon & Walmart out-competed the mom-and-pops of a generation ago. This was bad for the owners of the mom-and-pop stores, but it was good for the poor: in fact, the only way it could happen is because the poor voted with their dollars.

braythwayt 11y ago
I have been hearing for YEARS how much better off we all are, thanks to Walmart, Amazon, and so on. I have been hearing for YEARS how it’s only a few mom-and-pop stores who suffered, and some overpaid auto manufacturing jobs that went overboard, and so on. And yet... People outside of our cozy little tech industry do not think they are better off.
wstrange 11y ago
It's a double edge sword. Yes, Walmart helped to lower costs for the poor, but they also drove a lot of small businesses under and have fought hard to suppress wages and benefits. Overall, I'm not sure it is a net win.
whistlerbrk 11y ago
I cant believe you're serious. People didn't vote with their dollars. They needed to eat so they sacrifice the long term for the short. companies like Walmart are able to leverage their miniscule effective tax rate compared to mom and pop stores to offer cheaper goods, combined with the FACT that they artificially lower prices to a point where an individual store loses money all for the sake of driving the local competition out of business which has no other operations to soak up losses. Walmart has innovated in logistics and supply chain management but make no mistake they offer poor quality goods which exploit cheap foreign labor at the long term expense of our middle class
- zo1 11y ago
  >"They needed to eat so they sacrifice the long term for the short." And they would not have had to sacrifice if they went to the "mom and pop stores" instead? You're not really addressing the point of Walmart actually being cheaper than the mom and pop stores, and thus got more sales. Precisely leading to what the OP said of poor people voting "with their dollars". >*"Walmart has innovated in logistics and supply chain management[...]" Exactly how they made life easier for the poor, by transferring enough of the cost-savings from the efficiency to both undercut the wasteful mom and pop stores, and to save the poor customers money.
- soared 11y ago
  Are you claiming Walmart's success is based on a low tax rate and their effectiveness at driving out competition? I don't support Walmart by any means but they do a whole lot more than what you give them credit for.

by wtbob 11y ago

braythwayt 11y ago

I have been hearing for YEARS how much better off we all are, thanks to Walmart, Amazon, and so on. I have been hearing for YEARS how it’s only a few mom-and-pop stores who suffered, and some overpaid auto manufacturing jobs that went overboard, and so on. And yet... People outside of our cozy little tech industry do not think they are better off.

wstrange 11y ago

It's a double edge sword. Yes, Walmart helped to lower costs for the poor, but they also drove a lot of small businesses under and have fought hard to suppress wages and benefits. Overall, I'm not sure it is a net win.

whistlerbrk 11y ago

I cant believe you're serious. People didn't vote with their dollars. They needed to eat so they sacrifice the long term for the short. companies like Walmart are able to leverage their miniscule effective tax rate compared to mom and pop stores to offer cheaper goods, combined with the FACT that they artificially lower prices to a point where an individual store loses money all for the sake of driving the local competition out of business which has no other operations to soak up losses. Walmart has innovated in logistics and supply chain management but make no mistake they offer poor quality goods which exploit cheap foreign labor at the long term expense of our middle class

zo1 11y ago
>"They needed to eat so they sacrifice the long term for the short." And they would not have had to sacrifice if they went to the "mom and pop stores" instead? You're not really addressing the point of Walmart actually being cheaper than the mom and pop stores, and thus got more sales. Precisely leading to what the OP said of poor people voting "with their dollars". >*"Walmart has innovated in logistics and supply chain management[...]" Exactly how they made life easier for the poor, by transferring enough of the cost-savings from the efficiency to both undercut the wasteful mom and pop stores, and to save the poor customers money.
soared 11y ago
Are you claiming Walmart's success is based on a low tax rate and their effectiveness at driving out competition? I don't support Walmart by any means but they do a whole lot more than what you give them credit for.