8 ms·

After a couple of levels of indirection, I think the whole argument hinges on one anecdote. It might indicate a general pattern, but no actual authoritative sou

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• sokoloff 5y ago
  Dollar General comes in and offers local consumers a bargain that local consumers strongly prefer. Accordingly, local consumers vote with their feet. Unless the master plan is to run competitors out of town and then change to "Two Dollar General", it seems like Dollar General is good for consumers (at least if you judge by consumers' own revealed preferences).
  • Retric 5y ago
    Dollar general does frequently have a high markup in poor communities without alternatives. It’s for lack of a better term poverty optimized which counterintuitively isn’t about the lowest cost per pound of flour etc.
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      The shrinkage rate may also contribute to this. In other words, the more goods that are stolen from the shelves, the higher the prices have to be on everything else in order to maintain sustainability. In this way, shoplifting is essentially a tax on everyone else in your community.
    • sokoloff 5y ago
      If Dollar General is not in that neighborhood that has limited choice (or DG closes down/pulls out), is that community made better or worse? I think it's made worse.
      • kennywinker 5y ago
        Well if the choice is nothing or DG, of course everyone is going to pick DG. And you're right that's the choice many communities are facing. But it wouldn't take much tweaking at a policy level (civic, state, federal) to change that equation and bring business that actually support the community (jobs, high-nutrition and more local products, a venue for community building events, etc). The fact that the choice is DG or nothing is the problem, not DG itself.
        • wayoutthere 5y ago
          In my neighborhood at least, the closure of the only affordable grocery store led to a number of people selling produce on the street corner out of the back of pickup trucks. This is in the middle of a major city the US northeast.
        • greedo 5y ago
          What policy changes would "fix" the problem you're portraying? I see nothing simple, and definitely nothing that would just be a tweak to existing policies.
          • kennywinker 5y ago
            Well, i’m not in the local grocery business, but some avenues i would explore are: tariffs on importing mostly single use soon-to-be-trash from china - something that would cut into their business model in a big way. Decent antitrust to prevent some of the monopolistic practices that mean DG and Walmart can get better deals from distributors. Requiring a livable wage for the one or two cashiers might be enough, honestly. I’m sure there are plenty of others i’m unaware of. The systems we have are what enable this business to exist, and make it hard for healthier (both in terms of food sold and their impact on communities) business to exist.
  • nicoburns 5y ago
    What is good for consumers may not be good for communities though. I'd argue that there is significant harm perpetuated on economies by the migration of wealth away from wages and small-scale profits of local businesspeople into the profits of large companies.
    • temp_account002 5y ago
      That's a common refrain for "buy local", but is that always true? It seems to depend on many assumptions... 1) That the local business owner will invest back into the community, more than the chain store would have. Sure, some of that revenue will go towards employees, local sales tax, charitable donations, etc., but the same could be said of the chain store. The rest of the profit... what's to stop the local owner from accumulating savings in a national bank, or investing in out of area stocks, crypto, etc.? Unless they were thinking of expanding/franchising their store, their actual investments (as opposed to costs) may or may not be in the local economy vs whatever has the highest ROI. 2) That the local consumers who saved money from the chain store wouldn't simply spend that money at other local businesses. Let's say the chain store saves 1000 customers $10 each, that's $10k of unspent money that could be organically used at other businesses, vs that $10k being funneled into the control of a single small-business owner who might just invest it elsewhere. On average, there's probably a higher chance of 1000 customers spending at least SOME of that money locally than that one local business owner deciding to. 3) Small local businesses typically do not have the economies of scale that benefit pricing and processes, which means they don't have the same margins, which means they might not be able to afford good wages & benefits for their staff, or have to pass on those costs in the form of higher prices for local consumers (who then have less money to spend on other businesses). 4) Most market goods are fungible and UPCed and distributed across the whole country anyway, whereas things like schools and real estate are strictly local/geographical. Money consumers save can be spent on their own immediate family needs, building community by allowing them to afford actual roots instead of just shopping local and supporting that one small business owner. 5) Small businesses tend not to have a very diverse labor force (in terms of skill sets), especially if they're retail. That means the local labor pool has limited employment options beyond low-end service jobs. Especially in a post-COVID employment landscape, large digital-savvy companies probably offer a more realistic pathway out of rural poverty (i.e. people can learn skills, work for remotely for one, but stay local). The small local mom-and-pops can only very rarely offer that to local residents... maybe they contract a local print shop or two, but rarely do they employ full-time marketers, designers, artists, coders, architects, sustainability people, etc. Basically the whole "buy local" argument seems to stem from the idea that your money is better in the hands of a small business owner than Jeff Bezos's pockets. Maybe that's true in some statistical sense, but it also misses the savings that YOU keep and can spend how you see fit, including investing in your community in actual, non-trivial ways (employment, real estate, schools, local government, marriage, etc.). Buy local might be good for local business owners, but I don't think it's necessarily good for local consumers or local communities. I'd be happy to see data showing otherwise though...
  • mumblemumble 5y ago
    It seems like, if this sort of thing is actually happening, then, when we strip away all the specifics, which seem to be a bit emotionally charged, we're left with a clean little fable about capitalism? "A long time ago, there was one store, and prices were high. Then a second store came to town, and prices were low. Eventually, one of the stores closed, so now we have one store again, and prices are high."
    • sokoloff 5y ago
      I think it's the last step that's not happening here. DG comes in, outcompetes the less efficient alternatives, and then stays DG for the long-run. IMO, making the consumers in the community better off.
      • mumblemumble 5y ago
        Perhaps, though there is that thing about local business keeping the money local to contend with. At the same time, I'm not convinced we can just assume that to be the case. When a new grocery store in the neighboring town came and put the IGA out of business, my friends were also comparing notes and noticing that the new store paid better than the old one. And offered some things locally where we previously had to drive all the way into the city to get them. I'm just not convinced these kind of situations can all be neatly fit into a single, straightforward narrative.
        • jcims 5y ago
          >Perhaps, though there is that thing about local business keeping the money local to contend with. I'd say this is to be proven. People that own businesses in broke areas (which is what we're talking about here, no?) are also likely to invest their money in expanding their company in other broke areas, personal financial investments and their children's education. I live in a relatively rural community where the public schools actually do quite academically when compared across the entire state and we would get families moving into the community because of the excellent care we provide to developmentally disabled kids. Unfortunately the vast majority of people I know that went to college moved out of town and is now generating tax revenue elsewhere.
  • arrosenberg 5y ago
    It's not really great for them when they leave the store and go back to being citizens of their communities. The dollars they just spent aren't being reinvested by the local owner, they're going to a private equity firm based in New York. That's pretty clearly extractive, rather than being a mutually beneficial relationship.
    • nradov 5y ago
      Most grocery stores are also chains not opened by locals.
      • arrosenberg 5y ago
        I wasn't arguing in favor of the current system, but against running further ahead in the race to the bottom.
    • HideousKojima 5y ago
      As opposed to my local Walmart, or Kroger?
    • greedo 5y ago
      Nonsense. The wages paid to employees are kept local, as is any sales tax.
    • dcolkitt 5y ago
      And that private equity firm is largely made up of capital from pension funds, charitable endowments, and university endowments. Dollars leaving the community is a good thing. Those dollars don’t just go into a black hole. They go to other towns. And some of those towns’ dollars come to our town. That allows all of us to diversity our risk across geographic areas. I’d much rather own a small slice of grocery stores in 1000 towns across the country than a large share of the grocery store down the street.
      • inetknght 5y ago
        > Dollars leaving the community is a good thing. Those dollars don’t just go into a black hole. They go to other towns. And some of those towns’ dollars come to our town. Trickle-down economics failed the U.S. before and will fail us again. Trickle-down economics are a lie sold by the mega-rich.
  • jimhefferon 5y ago
    Here is a wild guess: a new kind of store sells only the top, say, 50% of items in terms of sales numbers, and sells them for a little less. People out shopping for things all from that group go there. But everybody needs the bottom 50% sometimes, and when they do, that store is no longer around.
    • ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
      This was a better argument before the internet. Nowadays I don't think it's worth paying a 30% markup on everything so that one thing you sometimes want is always within driving distance. At the end of the day people shop where it's convenient and cheap, with a bit of a tradeoff between those too. Some people like spending more at a locally owned place, but most would rather pocket that extra cash.
  • frozenport 5y ago
    Then my taxes pay for the people that got sick trying to survive off Dollar General.
  • wayoutthere 5y ago
    This is indeed the master plan; DG will flood an area with conveniently located stores, drive out the bodegas and grocery stores, then close DG stores to reduce redundancy (and leave the existing stores to rot). The result are food deserts that encompass inner city neighborhoods where the only thing you can find to eat is hyper-processed and comes from a box. Dollar General is at the crossroads of a bodega and a grocery store: it’s way better than the bodegas despite not being much more expensive, but it also replaces enough grocery store trips that grocery stores are no longer economically viable.
    • greedo 5y ago
      My father-inlay lives in a small town of roughly 2k. The local grocery store continually goes out of business since it can't compete with the Walmart and national grocery store that's roughly 15 miles away. In the winter time, that's can be a pain to drive. So he's had to rely upon the two local gas stations, and their meager and overpriced groceries much of the time. DG opened up last year in town, and now he has a much better place to shop. The store also pays better than the gas stations. I think it's a win win. And can you point to where I can read about DG's "master plan?"
    • handrous 5y ago
      > the only thing you can find to eat is hyper-processed and comes from a box. Maybe my area's DGs are atypical, but their selection of food that doesn't fit this description is barely better than a decent gas station's. If your only option is a DG then you may already be in that situation, without their needing to close the store to make it happen.
  • kktkti9 5y ago
    These places exacerbate material waste and trivial spending. Dollar objects get replaced much faster than better quality objects. They’re manipulating that “new purchase” high similar to Facebook juicing us via likes.
    • milsorgen 5y ago
      This is absolutely true but if you pay attention you can save money. Make a cheap lunch for work, gift bag for a birthday, quick emergency repair but just as much you see people spending 30 bucks on a bucket load of crap. Its really on the consumers shoulders to maximize the utility of their retail options. But that takes time and effort and all of us only have so much if any effort to give. I mean is it better to spend ten minutes to save a dollar or save ten minutes and spend an extra dollar?
      • techrat 5y ago
        TLDR: DG incentivizes laziness.
    • HeckFeck 5y ago
      > They’re manipulating that “new purchase” high similar to Facebook juicing us via likes. Very aptly put. I've been captive to their charm and can verify there is a certain dopamine thrill that quickly vanishes after the subpar goods are brought home and inspected. These phantom brand dumps invariably smell of cheap plastic dust. That tragic scent fits the gloomy foreboding that such places bring, and should also ward off would-be entrants. It is a literal air of hopelessness. I miss real shops and solid kit.
    • refurb 5y ago
      What? Most of the items in the dollar store seem like consumables?
• jcims 5y ago
  Dollar General specifically also goes to places that have no local community retail. There is one three miles from me that was built a few years ago in this exact situation. Yet we won't see any quotes about that in articles like this that are just focusing on the negative.
• jstummbillig 5y ago
  Interesting. Do you know if Dollar General is cheaper per calorie when talking actual ready made meals? The linked article talks about worse price per ounce, which might mean something very different.
  • nicoburns 5y ago
    Per calorie probably isn't a great measure. Lots of high-calorie but nutrient-poor foods will score highly by that measure.
    • LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      I've read that in times of economic hardships people survived on cheaper dog food without bad outcomes. Maybe it tastes even acceptable with some Sri Racha on it? Who knows. Anyways... what I meant to say is probably something like don't be so fucking picky! (Regarding measurments and such.) Arf! Arf! (SCNR)
    • jstummbillig 5y ago
      I think it's an excellent measure, if you are poor and trying to get by.
• analyte123 5y ago
  Amusing. My personal experience is that DG is awesome. Before DG in the town I'm familiar with if you wanted to buy basic office or school supplies, basic OTC medical supplies that were not a gas-station 2-pack of aspirin, essentially any cookware, or a better variety of packaged goods than the local mediocre grocery store (like detergent, snacks, juice, sauces) you had to drive over 20 miles. The produce that DG does have is fresher than the local store and they also don't try to resell expired meat. Now people can use way less gasoline for their basic needs. Now senior citizens with limited mobility can drive slowly or take a golf cart to DG. Rather than "eroding prospects" it adds to sales tax revenue and makes the town more attractive for tourists, remote workers, and other people who are relocating. Dollar stores also have a small land footprint and use few utilities.
  • jcims 5y ago
    If there are two underrepresented groups in HN comments its poor folks and people that live in rural communities. This article is just scapegoating 'dollar stores' for scenarios where their growth intersects with environments suffering from incompetent leadership and shitty education as if a) it's the only place these stores exist and b) they are the root cause for the problems being outlined.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • lostandbored 5y ago
      Yeah, as someone who grew up (and still is) lower middle class near rural areas, DGs and the like served a niche that would be hard-press to be filled by other companies, national or local. So I can't really blame a company for taking over a market underserved. They are a symptom of larger changes in the economy and society, that which one SHOULD criticize.
      • etempleton 5y ago
        Yeah, I don’t think this is the dollar store chain’s fault. They are serving a niche. The problem is that this is such a growing niche, that well, it isn’t really a niche anymore. The problem is poor and low to middle income folks everywhere in America seem to be getting poorer.
• xwolfi 5y ago
  That's why, when you're a grocery store, you should stay a bit on top and join DG. I would even expect them to ask if you want to franchise with your existing clients. My dad has such a small business, that was struggling under threat of potential new regulation to increase competition: he joined a big national franchise, destroyed the other stores and now HE is the big store. Maybe some of the same business will have to close, but the clients are happy because prices dropped, my dad can keep his 5 employees and push towards retirement with a valuable business to resell, and the regulator will be happy to see that not only big malls will survive their liberalization attempt. The only people who lost are people who sat on their hands, looked at the sky in angst and complained people outside the village are coming to change things...
• jandrewrogers 5y ago
  There is a presumption here that "local" grocery stores are an unalloyed good. In my experience, having grown up in these kinds of places, they were often more exploitive and extractive than the national chains. When Walmart rolls into town, many times it breaks a local monopoly that used this fact to its advantage with both customers and employees. A problem in the US is that there are many thousands of communities that are below the size/density threshold where the traditional Walmart model makes sense. Dollar General seems to be well-optimized to fill this part of the market. Another nice thing about national chains is that they mostly stay out of community politics. Local monopoly business owners have a bad tendency to leverage that status into completely unrelated political and personal matters.
  • RC_ITR 5y ago
    This is the same argument about local newspapers - sure it is probably good to have local reporters covering local events, but replacing $5/line classified ads with Facebook Marketplace probably had a more positive impact on people vs. biased and poorly-read write-ups of a city counsel meetings ever did.
    • mrtesthah 5y ago
      Moving local news to Facebook sounds like exactly the wrong thing to do. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/solution-trump-biden-polarization-may-be-easier-cheaper-we-think-n1246573 https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/solution-trump-biden-polarizat... > Studies show a direct correspondence between the closing of newspapers and the polarization of people formerly served by those newspapers.
      • emodendroket 5y ago
        Most local papers are glorified circulars now.
      • RC_ITR 5y ago
        >We assess the impact of newspaper closures on polarized voting, using genetic matching to compare counties that are statistically similar but for the loss of a local newspaper. We identify a small but significant causal decrease in split-ticket voting in presidential and senatorial elections in these matched communities: in areas where a newspaper closed, split-ticket voting decreased by 1.9%. A 1.9% decrease as a result in a social science experiment does not exactly feel like a lot to me. The paper is paywalled, but I'd love to see their community matching methods and confidence intervals. EDIT: Found it [0] The paper tests how 66 communities (defined as only the county that the newspaper is headquartered in) with closed newspapers voted in 2012. The experiment tests for how many people split their vote only among President and Senator. Those communities skew very white (76% vs. 60% US average) and way over-represented the US East Coast + Midwest. Even taking all of that for granted, when they ran a placebo test on the 2008 election, they found literally the same difference (1.9%), just with a higher standard deviation (so they could call the result not significant). I don't think Facebook is good for news at all (we probably agree that it is by design polarizing), but local papers are not the salvation many make them out to be. 0: https://joshuadarr.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/8/1/51819147/darr_et_al._-_newspaper_closures_jcomm__as_accepted_.pdf https://joshuadarr.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/8/1/51819147/darr_...