4 ms·

If I shop at Wal-Mart, the money leaves my local economy forever and basically just goes to shareholders and overseas manufactures. This is only the case if no

by azanar 16y ago

If I shop at Wal-Mart, the money leaves my local economy forever and basically just goes to shareholders and overseas manufactures. This is only the case if no one who gets money, either directly or indirectly, from Wal-Mart wants to buy any of the stuff your local economy was making. Think of all the people all around the world who get money from Wal-Mart. If none of these people want to buy anything you and your fellow townsmen make, then you are absolutely right that the money leaves your local economy forever. But this points to a deeper pathology. You want something people outside your community provide (through Wal-Mart or whatever), but you refuse to give back an equal amount of value for what you extract. Because of this expectation, you rail against anything non-local. This is how trade deficits get started, and the solution to them is not to scream for a reemergence of isolationist economic policy, which is essentially your concept of a self-circulating local economy. The solution is to realize that other people want you to do things for them when they do things for you, and to get over this quaint notion of historic mainstreet town life if you really want the things that a big box style economy provides. You can't have both unless you want to go broke. I also think local merchants are more likely to sell goods/services that are better for their local economy than a big box retailer that is completely disconnected from the local economy. Can you back this up, or are you waxing sentimental? As far as the flow of capital is concerned, a big box retailer provides a lot for a local economy because people spend a lot of money there. They're winning as far as cash flow goes, which means they are giving people what they want, even if they whine about getting it. If nothing else, I think this shows that local economies aren't as special and unique as people claim they are; it's like the Lake Wobegon Effect for retail. Your local economy is not that special, your locality is not that special, and your fight to remain isolated in all the ways you think matter while becoming interconnected with other communities in all the ways you are willing to tolerate is going to backfire, because you come across expecting more from others than they are allowed to expect from you. If you want that money back, then do something that makes people want to give it back to you. It's as simple as that.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
I don't understand why some people on HN are so needlessly condescending: Can you back this up, or are you waxing sentimental? Why would I even want to discuss something with someone with such an unnecessary rude and snarky attitude? Yes, I can back this up... go into your local pizza shop/taco stand/burger joint/Italian restaurant/seafood shack and get a pizza/burrito/burger/pasta/fish and compare the ingredients to Pizza Hut. One is made out of a bunch of "edible food-like substances" (to quote Michael Pollan) the other is made with actual food. Quote: Wal-Mart sells cheaply and uses fewer workers partly because it is a technological and organizational innovator, but its success depends even more on its relentless pressure on workers and suppliers, and its extraordinary market power is by far the dominant retailer of many goods. The corporation is likely to control 35 percent of all U.S. food and drug sales by 2007. Wal-Mart also shifts many of its costs to taxpayers (or other businesses that indirectly pay costs of Wal-Mart’s underinsured employees). A recent study by Good Jobs First, an organization that monitors economic development policies, found that state and local governments had given at least $1 billion in subsidies to stores and distribution centers. Wal-Mart also pays so little that many of its workers rely on state healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers and other public aid. According to a recent study by the University of California at Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, California alone spends $10 billion annually to subsidize Wal-Mart and similar low-wage employers. Congressional Democratic staff calculates that federal taxpayers pay $2,103 per year in subsidies for the average Wal-Mart worker. Source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_wal_mart_effect/ http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_wal_mart_effect/
- lurker17 16y ago
  Are you sure you know where the local restaurant's food comes from? It's most likely from SYSCO: http://www.sysco.com/products/productpage_search.asp?productID=329 http://www.sysco.com/products/productpage_search.asp?product... Not every local restaurant sources local organic farm-to-plate food.
  - lotusleaf1987 16y ago
    Well my girlfriend is a food analyst for one of SYSCO's rivals, so I tend to have a bit more knowledge than the average person, but yes I agree that a lot of local restaurants don't use local produce, but it's still better than going to basically any chain restaurant.
- azanar 16y ago
  One is made out of a bunch of "edible food-like substances" (to quote Michael Pollan) the other is made with actual food. Because once we poison the well, only then can we have a fruitful discussion about this. Let's not drop this to the level of throwing about "frankenfood" type labels; those convince for entirely bogus reasons. And I have had some absolutely asininely terrible food from local restaurants that would make a chain look worthy of Michelin stars by comparison. I'd argue that is what you lose more of with chains; you don't get the variance that allows for the highs, but you are also somewhat covered from that same variance giving you some really dismal lows. Sometimes, predictable but mediocre is more desirable than variable and possibly outstanding or complete crap. Wal-Mart also pays so little that many of its workers rely on state healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers and other public aid. FWIW, I think the subsidies given to Wal-Mart are a bunch of crap. If you dislike those, talk to your government; don't damn the recipient for taking what they've been given. But Wal-Mart isn't entirely to be damned for the rest of this either. The presumption under all of this is that the people who are employed by Wal-Mart have no other options. Is this true? Yes, I know; of course it's true. But, is it true? Either way, things are rather bleak. Either people aren't exercising their options to their own advantage, or they are trapped in a position with absolutely no bargaining power. But we won't solve this by killing Wal-Mart; these problems are merely exposed by a big box store forcing the economics we've been ignoring for a long time for the sake of social harmony and idealism. Products were sold at marked up prices to support marked up sales staff, and we look back and argue all of that was to preserve a milieu that is considered an unquestionably good thing. The same thing in the past has happened to a ton of other professions. In every case, we moved on. In a way, all of these subsidies prevent us from doing so. I wonder if the reality is much more mundane and non-idealistic; we didn't care much either way, but didn't know until Wal-Mart and the like came along that it could be done cheaper. As a footnote, I'm not pro-Wal-Mart. I'm just someone who is alternatively interested in and confused by people's reactions to economic forces.

by azanar 16y ago

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

I don't understand why some people on HN are so needlessly condescending: Can you back this up, or are you waxing sentimental? Why would I even want to discuss something with someone with such an unnecessary rude and snarky attitude? Yes, I can back this up... go into your local pizza shop/taco stand/burger joint/Italian restaurant/seafood shack and get a pizza/burrito/burger/pasta/fish and compare the ingredients to Pizza Hut. One is made out of a bunch of "edible food-like substances" (to quote Michael Pollan) the other is made with actual food. Quote: Wal-Mart sells cheaply and uses fewer workers partly because it is a technological and organizational innovator, but its success depends even more on its relentless pressure on workers and suppliers, and its extraordinary market power is by far the dominant retailer of many goods. The corporation is likely to control 35 percent of all U.S. food and drug sales by 2007. Wal-Mart also shifts many of its costs to taxpayers (or other businesses that indirectly pay costs of Wal-Mart’s underinsured employees). A recent study by Good Jobs First, an organization that monitors economic development policies, found that state and local governments had given at least $1 billion in subsidies to stores and distribution centers. Wal-Mart also pays so little that many of its workers rely on state healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers and other public aid. According to a recent study by the University of California at Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, California alone spends $10 billion annually to subsidize Wal-Mart and similar low-wage employers. Congressional Democratic staff calculates that federal taxpayers pay $2,103 per year in subsidies for the average Wal-Mart worker. Source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_wal_mart_effect/ http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/the_wal_mart_effect/

lurker17 16y ago
Are you sure you know where the local restaurant's food comes from? It's most likely from SYSCO: http://www.sysco.com/products/productpage_search.asp?productID=329 http://www.sysco.com/products/productpage_search.asp?product... Not every local restaurant sources local organic farm-to-plate food.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Well my girlfriend is a food analyst for one of SYSCO's rivals, so I tend to have a bit more knowledge than the average person, but yes I agree that a lot of local restaurants don't use local produce, but it's still better than going to basically any chain restaurant.
azanar 16y ago
One is made out of a bunch of "edible food-like substances" (to quote Michael Pollan) the other is made with actual food. Because once we poison the well, only then can we have a fruitful discussion about this. Let's not drop this to the level of throwing about "frankenfood" type labels; those convince for entirely bogus reasons. And I have had some absolutely asininely terrible food from local restaurants that would make a chain look worthy of Michelin stars by comparison. I'd argue that is what you lose more of with chains; you don't get the variance that allows for the highs, but you are also somewhat covered from that same variance giving you some really dismal lows. Sometimes, predictable but mediocre is more desirable than variable and possibly outstanding or complete crap. Wal-Mart also pays so little that many of its workers rely on state healthcare subsidies, food stamps, housing vouchers and other public aid. FWIW, I think the subsidies given to Wal-Mart are a bunch of crap. If you dislike those, talk to your government; don't damn the recipient for taking what they've been given. But Wal-Mart isn't entirely to be damned for the rest of this either. The presumption under all of this is that the people who are employed by Wal-Mart have no other options. Is this true? Yes, I know; of course it's true. But, is it true? Either way, things are rather bleak. Either people aren't exercising their options to their own advantage, or they are trapped in a position with absolutely no bargaining power. But we won't solve this by killing Wal-Mart; these problems are merely exposed by a big box store forcing the economics we've been ignoring for a long time for the sake of social harmony and idealism. Products were sold at marked up prices to support marked up sales staff, and we look back and argue all of that was to preserve a milieu that is considered an unquestionably good thing. The same thing in the past has happened to a ton of other professions. In every case, we moved on. In a way, all of these subsidies prevent us from doing so. I wonder if the reality is much more mundane and non-idealistic; we didn't care much either way, but didn't know until Wal-Mart and the like came along that it could be done cheaper. As a footnote, I'm not pro-Wal-Mart. I'm just someone who is alternatively interested in and confused by people's reactions to economic forces.