4 ms·

> "we're not against change, we're not against business, if you want to open a nice little coffee shop and bookstore, but Dollar General just isn't quite a goo

> "we're not against change, we're not against business, if you want to open a nice little coffee shop and bookstore, but Dollar General just isn't quite a good fit." this line stood out to me because it mirrored a lot of debate in my small rural community when a dollar general proposed moving in (spoiler alert: DG won). the debates around DG had a way of exposing some previously-unseen class and economic divisions in the the community. it wasn't a NIMBY vs YIMBY thing -- both wanted development -- but they just had very different needs and expectations. you have one group that wants the cute little bookstores/coffeeshops to preserve "local character". they may not be rich, but they aren't struggling day to day so they say "I don't mind paying a little extra to support local business". then there's the other group which says "i don't have any extra money to support local business". they'd love to be in a position to worry about local character, but today they just need to be able to afford another single roll of TP and have some snacks for their kid after school. in my community, these two groups existed in their own little bubbles never really interacted until the DG debate came up, so in a way it was good for dissolving some of those boundaries.

pj_mukh 2y ago
“it wasn't a NIMBY vs YIMBY thing -- both wanted development” This distinction isnt the most important point here but this is very much NIMBY-ism. Blocking a development because the community has different opinions about what should be built, particularly opinions they don’t want to fund via their tax dollars is basically textbook NIMBY-ism.
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  It doesn’t have to be tax dollars funded. It’s about what they “want” and don’t “want”. It’s about having an opinion, almost entirely shaped by self interest, and not caring about anything else. That’s textbook NIMBY-ism.
- parpfish 2y ago
  in this particular case you're probably right, especially for the people opposed to DG on 'local character' grounds. but it's not like YIMBYs literally say "yes" to every development. there's also DG opposition on the basis of creating sprawl on the outskirts of town, and that's the type of opposition you'd probably hear from the strongtowns-loving YIMBY types. they are strongly opposed to the types of developments that increase sprawl because of long-term infrastructure costs, reduced walkability, etc.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    The principled approach to YIMBYism is to say yes to (or rather, to not artificially stand in the way of) every development (within reason). Otherwise you're just another NIMBY with slightly different opinions about what types of things you don't want in your backyard. Generally speaking the market is pretty good about sorting out what what developments provide value on its own without interference from the loud minority of people who want to vote on everything with their voices rather than their feet.
renewiltord 2y ago
Yes, people do unfairly call me a NIMBY but ultimately I’m just trying to make sure that the thing that is being built in my backyard is community-oriented, socially-responsible, ethical, environmentally conscious, and built by local artisans using local materials. And if we can’t do it right, then maybe we shouldn’t do it.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  That's a great attitude if you can afford it. But try telling it to the single low-income parent trying to raise their kids who just needs to make ends meet at the end of the month. Unless you have a massive wealth redistribution plan in place, with massive, extremely progressive local taxes so everyone can afford the massively higher prices you'll be forcing on everyone?
  - johannes1234321 2y ago
    An angle on that: Imagine getting rid of the big cost factor, the car. And having a walkable neighborhood with school, stores, medical care, workplaces in workable (or short bicycle ride) away. Of course this won't magically happen when a single DG is rejected.
    - hx8 2y ago
      We can also do a lot to help low income families by decreasing housing costs and medical costs, both of which seem as likely as building walkable communities in the US.
    - macNchz 2y ago
      Yeah I see a lot of stuff in America where decades of single-minded optimization towards cheap & convenient has had knock-on effects that ultimately don't serve people very well, or wind up creating second order costs—like hollowing out downtowns for cheap stuff at Walmart being a big part of making car ownership a prerequisite for daily living, or the cheap and convenient food options that have precipitated a nationwide public health crisis, or the way we've constructed our built environment in a way that has seemingly left people unhappy and isolated.
Lendal 2y ago
People are generally in agreement against lower wages and higher property prices, but when it comes time to sell the store, they're gonna sell to the highest bidder. If that bidder wants to put in something that has the effect of putting more locals out of business and lowering regional wages, it has the effect of extracting wealth from the local community. But that's the next generation's problem. I want my cheap stuff now. I want the highest price for the assets I'm turning over to the 1%, which only wants to extract wealth from the community long term. I believe there's no way to resolve this except to use the tax system to put society back in balance. Regular workers need to be able to afford to live a normal life again. The Dollar Generals of the world have become too good at wealth extraction. They look good in the short term, but over time through extremely low wages they drain local communities dry until they become a husk of what they were. Then people can't afford to fight against Dollar General and Walmart any more. They need the lower prices to survive, but in making these bad deals they further impoverish their own communities. The people who say they want to "keep the coffee shop character" are focusing on the wrong thing. That's a bad strategy. They need to be looking at the long-term economics of their communities and bringing that danger to the forefront. It's not about character. Character doesn't pay the bills. It's about wealth extraction. About lowering regional wages to the point your community becomes dependent on government assistance and can no longer afford to shop anywhere else but Dollar General.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  > People are generally in agreement against lower wages and higher property prices Neither of those are economic policies. People are very much in agreement that they want cheap goods, high wages, high property values, low housing costs, walkable neighborhoods, and free parking despite many of those things being in direct opposition to one another or even completely contradictory. You can't just say "people universally want this obviously good thing, therefore we should ignore everything else in order to achieve that one goal". Businesses in a competitive market don't "extract wealth", they create it. When I buy something from Walmart it makes both me and Walmart wealthier, because I value the thing I bought more than the money I spent to buy it, and they value my money more than the product sitting in their inventory. When I work for Walmart it makes both me and Walmart wealthier, because they value my labor more than the money they spent to employ me, and I value the money they're paying me more than the time I spent to make it. What creates poverty isn't "wealth extraction", it's market inefficiency. When you artificially pull money out of the market through taxes and waste it on something worth less than the money itself is (which unlike private individuals or businesses you as the government can afford to do indefinitely, because you didn't earn that money through a voluntary transaction, you took it by force) that results in wealth being destroyed rather than created. Are markets perfect? No. Markets are a stochastic system so there will obviously be inefficiencies at the margins. Markets also don't work when there's no competition, and they are only concerned with efficiency, not loftier ideals like morality and compassion. But so far creating wealth is concerned, markets are unmatched. Since you seem concerned with the "long-term economics of a community" rather than the long-term economics of the world as a whole though, things are a little more complicated. Saying that we should favor local businesses over businesses foreign to the community because we want to avoid sending money out of the community is essentially the same argument made by those in favor of tariffs at the national level; that even if free trade is more efficient as a whole it's not in the local community's best interest for it to be importing more goods than it's exporting. There's some truth to this; spending more than you make isn't sustainable long term. But I don't think artificial barriers to trade are a good solution to this problem; you need to address the underlying cause of your community/country's exports being unable to compete in the wider market. Note also that retail businesses in a local community are not a closed system regardless of whether the business itself is local or foreign to the community. If I buy $20 of goods from Mom and Pop's general store, they probably still had to buy those goods from somewhere outside the community. The fact that the retail business itself is local doesn't really change that; there's still wealth flowing out of the community which has to be replaced by something of equivalent value being exported; otherwise the community will be unable to sustain itself long term.

pj_mukh 2y ago

“it wasn't a NIMBY vs YIMBY thing -- both wanted development” This distinction isnt the most important point here but this is very much NIMBY-ism. Blocking a development because the community has different opinions about what should be built, particularly opinions they don’t want to fund via their tax dollars is basically textbook NIMBY-ism.

darth_avocado 2y ago
It doesn’t have to be tax dollars funded. It’s about what they “want” and don’t “want”. It’s about having an opinion, almost entirely shaped by self interest, and not caring about anything else. That’s textbook NIMBY-ism.
parpfish 2y ago
in this particular case you're probably right, especially for the people opposed to DG on 'local character' grounds. but it's not like YIMBYs literally say "yes" to every development. there's also DG opposition on the basis of creating sprawl on the outskirts of town, and that's the type of opposition you'd probably hear from the strongtowns-loving YIMBY types. they are strongly opposed to the types of developments that increase sprawl because of long-term infrastructure costs, reduced walkability, etc.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  The principled approach to YIMBYism is to say yes to (or rather, to not artificially stand in the way of) every development (within reason). Otherwise you're just another NIMBY with slightly different opinions about what types of things you don't want in your backyard. Generally speaking the market is pretty good about sorting out what what developments provide value on its own without interference from the loud minority of people who want to vote on everything with their voices rather than their feet.

renewiltord 2y ago

Yes, people do unfairly call me a NIMBY but ultimately I’m just trying to make sure that the thing that is being built in my backyard is community-oriented, socially-responsible, ethical, environmentally conscious, and built by local artisans using local materials. And if we can’t do it right, then maybe we shouldn’t do it.

crazygringo 2y ago
That's a great attitude if you can afford it. But try telling it to the single low-income parent trying to raise their kids who just needs to make ends meet at the end of the month. Unless you have a massive wealth redistribution plan in place, with massive, extremely progressive local taxes so everyone can afford the massively higher prices you'll be forcing on everyone?
- johannes1234321 2y ago
  An angle on that: Imagine getting rid of the big cost factor, the car. And having a walkable neighborhood with school, stores, medical care, workplaces in workable (or short bicycle ride) away. Of course this won't magically happen when a single DG is rejected.
  - hx8 2y ago
    We can also do a lot to help low income families by decreasing housing costs and medical costs, both of which seem as likely as building walkable communities in the US.
  - macNchz 2y ago
    Yeah I see a lot of stuff in America where decades of single-minded optimization towards cheap & convenient has had knock-on effects that ultimately don't serve people very well, or wind up creating second order costs—like hollowing out downtowns for cheap stuff at Walmart being a big part of making car ownership a prerequisite for daily living, or the cheap and convenient food options that have precipitated a nationwide public health crisis, or the way we've constructed our built environment in a way that has seemingly left people unhappy and isolated.

Lendal 2y ago

People are generally in agreement against lower wages and higher property prices, but when it comes time to sell the store, they're gonna sell to the highest bidder. If that bidder wants to put in something that has the effect of putting more locals out of business and lowering regional wages, it has the effect of extracting wealth from the local community. But that's the next generation's problem. I want my cheap stuff now. I want the highest price for the assets I'm turning over to the 1%, which only wants to extract wealth from the community long term. I believe there's no way to resolve this except to use the tax system to put society back in balance. Regular workers need to be able to afford to live a normal life again. The Dollar Generals of the world have become too good at wealth extraction. They look good in the short term, but over time through extremely low wages they drain local communities dry until they become a husk of what they were. Then people can't afford to fight against Dollar General and Walmart any more. They need the lower prices to survive, but in making these bad deals they further impoverish their own communities. The people who say they want to "keep the coffee shop character" are focusing on the wrong thing. That's a bad strategy. They need to be looking at the long-term economics of their communities and bringing that danger to the forefront. It's not about character. Character doesn't pay the bills. It's about wealth extraction. About lowering regional wages to the point your community becomes dependent on government assistance and can no longer afford to shop anywhere else but Dollar General.

Ajedi32 2y ago
> People are generally in agreement against lower wages and higher property prices Neither of those are economic policies. People are very much in agreement that they want cheap goods, high wages, high property values, low housing costs, walkable neighborhoods, and free parking despite many of those things being in direct opposition to one another or even completely contradictory. You can't just say "people universally want this obviously good thing, therefore we should ignore everything else in order to achieve that one goal". Businesses in a competitive market don't "extract wealth", they create it. When I buy something from Walmart it makes both me and Walmart wealthier, because I value the thing I bought more than the money I spent to buy it, and they value my money more than the product sitting in their inventory. When I work for Walmart it makes both me and Walmart wealthier, because they value my labor more than the money they spent to employ me, and I value the money they're paying me more than the time I spent to make it. What creates poverty isn't "wealth extraction", it's market inefficiency. When you artificially pull money out of the market through taxes and waste it on something worth less than the money itself is (which unlike private individuals or businesses you as the government can afford to do indefinitely, because you didn't earn that money through a voluntary transaction, you took it by force) that results in wealth being destroyed rather than created. Are markets perfect? No. Markets are a stochastic system so there will obviously be inefficiencies at the margins. Markets also don't work when there's no competition, and they are only concerned with efficiency, not loftier ideals like morality and compassion. But so far creating wealth is concerned, markets are unmatched. Since you seem concerned with the "long-term economics of a community" rather than the long-term economics of the world as a whole though, things are a little more complicated. Saying that we should favor local businesses over businesses foreign to the community because we want to avoid sending money out of the community is essentially the same argument made by those in favor of tariffs at the national level; that even if free trade is more efficient as a whole it's not in the local community's best interest for it to be importing more goods than it's exporting. There's some truth to this; spending more than you make isn't sustainable long term. But I don't think artificial barriers to trade are a good solution to this problem; you need to address the underlying cause of your community/country's exports being unable to compete in the wider market. Note also that retail businesses in a local community are not a closed system regardless of whether the business itself is local or foreign to the community. If I buy $20 of goods from Mom and Pop's general store, they probably still had to buy those goods from somewhere outside the community. The fact that the retail business itself is local doesn't really change that; there's still wealth flowing out of the community which has to be replaced by something of equivalent value being exported; otherwise the community will be unable to sustain itself long term.