3 ms·
> often were owned by the local business man rather than a decentralized group of independent business owners You imply this is undesirable. Care to elaborate?
by hnbad 5y ago
> often were owned by the local business man rather than a decentralized group of independent business owners
You imply this is undesirable. Care to elaborate? A large talking point during the protests last year was businesses in Black communities being owned by people outside those communities, or more often than not, by large corporations.
Or are you suggesting that a lot of the owners actually owned multiple such shops and that this isn't true for the shops that replaced them?
- seibelj 5y agoIf the idea is that every mom and pop was ran by self-directed, profit-motivated independent business persons who captured more of the profit, this is not often the case - the employees of these stores made the same going labor rate of any retail employee, it was just a local business man who ran the businesses rather than a conglomerate. One benefit of a large corporation like Walmart is the share holders are far more distributed. My general point is that this fantasy of a "mom and pop utopia" of small businesses that Walmart and similar destroyed is just that - a total fantasy. They were not a dream situation and they went away because they were not the best for consumers or their community, not because of some grand conspiracy.