3 ms·

It's hard to find the point of the argument other than "poor people shouldn't be allowed to buy cheap stuff." These shops cause poverty by being cheaper than tr

It's hard to find the point of the argument other than "poor people shouldn't be allowed to buy cheap stuff." These shops cause poverty by being cheaper than traditional chain stores and attracting robbers who kill staff? I think people who have their life in order are often materialistic and value long-lived possessions. They see buying this "cheap Chinese crap destined for the landfill" as a sign of failure at life on the part of the buyers. But it's hard to blame poor people for behaving like poor people so somehow this article blames the shop.

fzeroracer 6y ago
To sum up the article: 1. Discount chains come in, proceed to wipe out all other local stores through economy of scale. 2. Discount chains become the only option for people to buy food or general necessities. Said food is often low quality and unhealthy. 3. Said chains also invest little in security, pay little and return little to the local community. Isn't it a failure of capitalism when there's only one store providing everything you need and results in a net negative to the community over a long period of time? It creates a defacto local monopoly. And when that discount chain becomes unprofitable or leaves, what do you think will happen?
- lopmotr 6y ago
  2. is just people exercising their freedom. Unless you want to disallow poor people access to products that rich people can have, or make them pay more! 3. Technically it may be true but it's obviously not an honest argument because they wouldn't blame the victim for other crimes. If that argument were valid, it'd also be the workers' fault for working in such a dangerous place and allowing crime to be committed (against themselves). Why isn't their criticism should be directed at the staff instead? The staff are just there to make money, same as the business is. Both are attracting crime.

fzeroracer 6y ago

To sum up the article: 1. Discount chains come in, proceed to wipe out all other local stores through economy of scale. 2. Discount chains become the only option for people to buy food or general necessities. Said food is often low quality and unhealthy. 3. Said chains also invest little in security, pay little and return little to the local community. Isn't it a failure of capitalism when there's only one store providing everything you need and results in a net negative to the community over a long period of time? It creates a defacto local monopoly. And when that discount chain becomes unprofitable or leaves, what do you think will happen?

lopmotr 6y ago
2. is just people exercising their freedom. Unless you want to disallow poor people access to products that rich people can have, or make them pay more! 3. Technically it may be true but it's obviously not an honest argument because they wouldn't blame the victim for other crimes. If that argument were valid, it'd also be the workers' fault for working in such a dangerous place and allowing crime to be committed (against themselves). Why isn't their criticism should be directed at the staff instead? The staff are just there to make money, same as the business is. Both are attracting crime.