> Once the new store raises prices, why can another cheaper store not come in and do the cycle over again? Well, then the first dollar store can lower prices t

> Once the new store raises prices, why can another cheaper store not come in and do the cycle over again? Well, then the first dollar store can lower prices to prevent that. Doing this requires a large war chest. The store needs to take a loss for months to years until its competitor dies. A Dollar Tree or a Dollar General can do this easily against a locally owned store. But once a Dollar Tree has moved in, a Dollar General won't, because both companies have the resources to back an individual store indefinitely, and neither will make any profit. So there's no use. Having one corporate-owned dollar store in a small town is a very stable minimum. > My contention is the cheaper store’s success is not the root cause, the cheaper store’s success is the symptom of a sufficient portion of the local populace losing purchasing power. Completely disagree. The cheaper store's success is a symptom of abuse of the market by a larger company. In places without discount stores, people get along just fine, and in fact protest against the opening of such stores in their town. These stores don't open stores in places where "the local populace has already lost purchasing power" and are seeking somewhere new to buy things, they open stores in places where they can create and enjoy a monopoly position due to the relatively small size of the local population. This isn't something you'd see in an urban area. But there are countless examples of this happening across Eastern Oregon or Nevada.