The Social Costs of Wal-Mart

[Lee Nellis]

The choice between Wal-Mart and Mom and Pop is a recent predicament. If you didn't own the Mom and Pop store, you didn't think of it as a career. You worked there as a high school student or college student back for the summer or as a person who was consciously seeking part-time work, not to make a living. If you needed to make a living, you worked at "the mill (to choose a generic term)."

Trouble is, the mill isn't there anymore. It is in India, China, Taiwan, etc. What remains of American manufacturing offers some good jobs, but not enough for the population that has grown up expecting such "easy" (I don't mean to be snobbish, maybe I should say "obvious") jobs. If you can't step up into a professional services job, a skilled trade, or something similar, you aren't very likely to get a living wage. Some salespeople do too, but the number of niches doesn't seem to be very large.

So the question is, how do we meet the economic aspirations of people who have been "promised," as they see it, a good factory job? Some of those folks have gotten the message and moved on, but there are many people whose cultural, family, and educational backgrounds make it hard for them to move on.

[japrovo]

Yes post-Fordism is here to stay. I'll agree that I think the "mill" (or whatever) is gone. But don't forget the recent tremors over the export of service jobs too. For what its worth in Oregon some of our low tech manufacturers (link below) including some small-to medium family-run operations, are rebounding faster than our high tech folks, even while manufacturing employment nationally continues to decline.

One answer, entrepreneurship/self-employment programs are interesting but sometimes strike me as pretty hit and miss. At a minimum it’s a pretty long-term proposition---like the economic benefits of investing in education generally. That may make the short term payoff of "investing" in a big box seem pretty appealing. No answers here---just more questions.

By the way, nobody seems to have raised the base vs. traded sector question. However you calculate the economic or social costs of Wal-Mart, does the public benefit from underwriting retail activity when there's no "new money" brought into the economy? Of course the answer depends on where you sit, but I thought I'd get that question on the record to appease any economists reviewing this thread.

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/ind...?oregonian?fng

[CCMNUT39]

Interesting discussion. There is no doubt in my mind what impacts Wal-Mart brings to a community, be it economic, socio, or land-use wise. In SE Washington, specifically, the Tri-Cities, we are looking at 3 Wal-Marts in a region with less than 250,000 people, 6 "super-stores" within a 100 mile radius along with a million square foot distribution center, and communities who welcome this global giant with open arms.

Where is the responsibility of the consumer? Box-stores like Wal-Mart, Target, Shopko, Lowe's, Home Depot, and others don't exist without the consumer. Think about that.

We may complain about the cost that these box-stores bring into our communities, but most of us (myself included) are guilty of wanting to save a few pennies and shop there as well. How do you get other businesses to compete? You can't and you won't be able to play that game.

Downtown's who try to compete with a Wal-Mart or other box-store type will always lose. Downtown's who find a niche that is completley out of Wal-Mart's domain and radar will succeed. A good example of this is Colville, Washington. They have a thriving downtown for a small community with a Wal-Mart superstore.

I think the point that I am trying to make is this: Unless we, as consumers, are willing to change our spending and shopping habits, the perpetuation of these corporations are going to continue. If they are going to exist in our communities, it's futile to try and compete with them, and communities almost need to shift their focus on a niche that will support a successful downtown.

How do you sell this to those mom's and pop's business owners that have been in business for 30 years? It's a tough sell. But it's also important that they look at how they are conducting business as well. Most downtown redevelopment groups will point you to some success stories on how they have overcome these obstacles.

[Coragus]

I haven't posted to Cyburbia in a few years, having fallen from grace and entered a non-planning position back in December. I'm trying very hard to get back to the planning world. In the meantime, I've been an analyst for a company that does predictive analysis for several nationwide clients, including one large big box retailer that makes up well over half of our revenue. As a result of this work, I've had to travel over the country and have seen the effects of big boxes, especially Wal-Mart, in several settings.

I went to one town in Ohio that had a vibrant, thriving downtown two miles from "Big Box Lane", which was also doing very well. I also visited one town in Oklahoma where the local grocery store lost 40% of its business to the Wal-Mart that opened 20 miles to the east. I've seen everything is between.

My point is this. Yes, there are some places where big boxes have acted in an aggressive manner and have actively tried to get the locally owned stores to close. There are also places where big boxes have cooperated with locally owned stores and each have found a successful niche and have mutally thrived. Communities need to be aware of the risks of that come with dealing with large companies like Wal-Mart and be aware of all the potentials that come with them, both good and bad. Local business also need to know of the potentials that big boxes bring with them, and learn to adapt to their presence in the community.

Big boxes can be a nice neighbor or a detriment to the community. They are never automatically one or the other, but will turn into one or the other based on each individual situation.

[Cardinal]

I haven't posted to Cyburbia in a few years, having fallen from grace and entered a non-planning position back in December. I'm trying very hard to get back to the planning world. In the meantime, I've been an analyst for a company that does predictive analysis for several nationwide clients, including one large big box retailer that makes up well over half of our revenue. As a result of this work, I've had to travel over the country and have seen the effects of big boxes, especially Wal-Mart, in several settings.

I went to one town in Ohio that had a vibrant, thriving downtown two miles from "Big Box Lane", which was also doing very well. I also visited one town in Oklahoma where the local grocery store lost 40% of its business to the Wal-Mart that opened 20 miles to the east. I've seen everything is between.

My point is this. Yes, there are some places where big boxes have acted in an aggressive manner and have actively tried to get the locally owned stores to close. There are also places where big boxes have cooperated with locally owned stores and each have found a successful niche and have mutally thrived. Communities need to be aware of the risks of that come with dealing with large companies like Wal-Mart and be aware of all the potentials that come with them, both good and bad. Local business also need to know of the potentials that big boxes bring with them, and learn to adapt to their presence in the community.

Big boxes can be a nice neighbor or a detriment to the community. They are never automatically one or the other, but will turn into one or the other based on each individual situation.

Welcome back!

Your point is a good one. Too many people want to see things like the "big box issue" in black-and-white terms. The reality is that they have both positive and negative impacts, and it is very situational.

[JNA]

Has anybody seen the latest collection on Daryl Cagle's The Professional Cartoonists Index at: http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/WalmartsWoes/main.asp

[JusticeZero]

I'd rather people didn't jump on the 'raise minimum wage' bandwagon so easily. I was in Alaska last time they increased minimum wage - the next morning, the following things happenned:
4:00 AM: Stopped by the grocery store (don't ask why I was at the store at 4 AM, I don't recall) to see an army of checkers raising every price in the store by about 20+% - thus, real income for a minimum wage earner was unaffected or weakened, fixed wage and middle income real wages went DOWN.
8:00 AM: My stepbrother is a social worker. One of his clients had a fast food job, basically for self esteem. He came to work to find that half the employees had been given pink slips; the only people remaining were the "high producers" - mostly transitioning, educated, (white) attractive people.
Shortly afterward: Several older family owned businesses in the area closed, citing an inability to keep up with the wage increase. Least affected were "big box" chains, as they posess an economy of scale and reserves to protect themself from market shocks more readily.

On the whole, I was NOT IMPRESSED. I like people to have more money, but reducing real earnings of everyone and employment opportunities for minorities while favoring multinational large chain businesses does not sound like the results of an effective social policy; it sounds like a disaster. Needs some serious review and brainstorming on implementation and principles, it seems.

[iamme]

I'd rather people didn't jump on the 'raise minimum wage' bandwagon so easily. I was in Alaska last time they increased minimum wage - the next morning, the following things happenned:
4:00 AM: Stopped by the grocery store (don't ask why I was at the store at 4 AM, I don't recall) to see an army of checkers raising every price in the store by about 20+% - thus, real income for a minimum wage earner was unaffected or weakened, fixed wage and middle income real wages went DOWN.
8:00 AM: My stepbrother is a social worker. One of his clients had a fast food job, basically for self esteem. He came to work to find that half the employees had been given pink slips; the only people remaining were the "high producers" - mostly transitioning, educated, (white) attractive people.
Shortly afterward: Several older family owned businesses in the area closed, citing an inability to keep up with the wage increase. Least affected were "big box" chains, as they posess an economy of scale and reserves to protect themself from market shocks more readily.

On the whole, I was NOT IMPRESSED. I like people to have more money, but reducing real earnings of everyone and employment opportunities for minorities while favoring multinational large chain businesses does not sound like the results of an effective social policy; it sounds like a disaster. Needs some serious review and brainstorming on implementation and principles, it seems.

The first question that popped in my head, "is this one of those reactionaries of the left and/or right that have the habit of posting a few times and then pffffffffft?"

[Tranplanner]

This article appeared in today's Toronto Star

[giff57]

Great article. First Wisconsin, now Canada. Pretty soon I won't have to rant about this topic any more.

[Plannerbabs]

I've seen that argument before. Our local paper (would pub a link, but it charges for stories more than a few days old) did a story on coffeehouses. Almost all of the local coffeehouse owners said that a certain international coffeehouse known to have drivethroughs had helped their business, by making more people aware of good coffee (?). The theory was that, by raising the awareness level, people who went through said drivethroughs on their way to work became more educated about the nuances of, say, a fine cup of Sulawesi, and then sought out the really good stuff to linger over at the locals. Not sure I entirely buy into the argument, but it does kind of make sense.
OTH, I can't see someone buying a bottle of Wally's Finest Plonk, and then rushing off to their local winery...but you never know.