Summary
Two studies reveal that Walmart’s entry into communities lowers household incomes by 6% over 10 years and increases poverty by 8%, even when accounting for cost savings.
Its practices, such as undercutting competitors, suppressing wages, and squeezing suppliers, harm local economies by reducing employment and forcing smaller businesses to close.
Walmart’s “monopsony power” enables it to pay lower wages and dominate suppliers, compounding these effects.
The findings challenge the idea that low prices alone benefit communities, emphasizing long-term economic harm.
——
Wastes vasts amounts of urban land on parking instead of housing or more businesses
Is often so deep in parking lots and strip malls its impossible to walk to
Cheap prices and cheap chinese manufacturing to help eliminate local competition
Massive corporation has more bulk buying power than local competition
Designed to be a one stop shop, fix your car, buy a tv and grab some food
Self checkouts pays robots instead of people in the community the store is in
The people who do work there are paid shit wages for life, often not even keeping up with inflation meaning they actually get paid less every year
Probably paying less taxes than they should be for the amount of space the business takes up and the amount of traffic generated
Helps promote car centric design which is a terribly ineffecient and expensive way to move people within an urban area.
I agree with all points. I just wonder how much the robots get paid.
I guess technically they pay the company that designed the self checkouts then pay their upkeep in electricity and maintaince. But just you wait for the AI self check outs. It will become self aware and start taking a cut for itself to buy memecoins.
All profits are exported out of the community, instead of staying/swirling about the community.
More than half of Walmart’s employees are on food stamps or some other form of government assistance. So along with everything else, our tax money goes to pay their employees because they won’t.
I call that a tax break, paying shit wages, AND ruining the local area by making everybody more poor all rolled into one because Walmart employees often shop at Walmart for their employee discount (because they can’t afford to shop elsewhere on their poor wages), meaning that their wages go right back into the company’s coffers right alongside our tax dollars.
I was buying camping equipment from walmart. They were out of some of my supplies and a new tent I wanted. I ordered alternative items from a online store and they were so much higher quality than the ones at walmart. Walmart squeezes its suppliers so much you end up with items that are more cheaply made. I’ve tested this on several different items and have discovered that walmart sources many of their brands straight from china. You can buy the same cheap shit from temu.
Theres literally documentaries from 2010 about manufacturers who make a “Walmart version” because Walmart demands these factories make them at a specific price.
Like in one documentary, the same toaster from Target and Walmart, the Walmart one had different cheaper parts inside. TVs, furniture, lamps. Even the plastic storage containers like totes and Tupperware had “Walmart” versions that were real flimsy.
Snapper Mowers actually pulled from Walmart in 2006 because they wanted to focus high quality products rather then moving quantity.
Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn’t just incompatible with Snapper’s future – Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper’s health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn’t in the price, it’s in the performance and the longevity.
Later in 2013, Briggs & Stratton decided to start selling Snapper in Walmarts again. 2014, Briggs & Stratton closed a Snapper plant. They then had to restructure and other corporate BS, so fuck around and find out. Publicly traded company garbage.
That’s why you operate multiple brands. You’ve got your Walmart brand and your decent brand and your overpriced luxury brand all pumped out of the same overseas factory
Isn’t that the logic behind what happened to Breyers Ice Cream. It started as a high end ice cream, but got bought Unilever, which then reduced the cream to the point that it can no longer be called Ice Cream.
They also do this with Black Friday electronics now too.
That’s not new either. Been going on for ages.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. It was full of cited information and even the sources led to interesting reads.
Hard to start a business when your competitor is Walmart.
Hard to make a living when the main employer is Walmart.
Hard to move when you don’t have any money.
Hard to start a business when your competitor is Walmart.
It’s also hard to maintain an existing business when your competitor is WalMart.
They can afford to undercut you until you go out of business, then they can charge whatever the market will bear.
Which is a lot on inelastic goods like food.
Edit- to use the correct term
*inelastic
I always fuck that up. Every time.
t⁸í::: spoiler Title
:::~~~~
No fucking shit.
This was news in like 1990.
Unfortunately dipshits will still argue about it to this day
Ya, I remember it being mentioned when I worked for them about 25 years ago. Unfortunately I cannot find any articles. All local news at the time, probably. Towns that had citizens who banded together and successfully combatted Walmart moving in, etc.
Okay for Walmart. Now, is it the same or worse with Amazon ?
Low prices AND low value. The cheap ass shit they sell is intended to break and be replaced as quickly as possible. E.g. cheap clothes that wear out quickly. Those who can’t afford better are thus trapped in a cycle of repeat buying.
The boot problem as written by Terry Pratchett. You can buy crappy boots every year for 25 dollars or boots for life for 100 dollars.
Where can I get these lifetime boots for $100?
Probably somewhere like Red Wing. Though they’re probably more than 100 now, you can get them resoled when the soles wear out.
So I’m gonna push back on this notion that quality boots that last a long time are even close to this price.
Red Wings are typically $180-270. I have a friend who does resoles and charges around $100-120. I’ve heard folks get their boots resoled every 2-3 years or so. Don’t know if that’s typical. So assuming a “lifetime” is 20 years and you resole 5 times in that period, you are looking at around $200+$500 minimum, not even accounting for inflation. Big difference.
I’ve never owned Red Wings - I will check them out but I note they do not make chelsea/chukka steel toe work boots in appropriate sizes. I wear Blundstone 990s because they are unisex, not too expensive and are pretty bomb proof.
They cannot be resoled but I find since I wear them for work I wear the sole and leather at about the same rate anyway and they typically will last me 3-4 years.
tl;dr I don’t think $100 “lifetime” boots exist, even behind magical mirrors.
The book they were referring to was written over 30 years ago. Of course they don’t exist anymore at that price, but I think the overall point still stands, if all you can afford is the lowest quality boots, you’ll end up paying more in the long run than if you could afford to buy better quality boots that can be repaired.
You have to find the right mirror in a Ross that reflects a tiny door behind you, only big enough to crawl through, where a decrepit shoemaker has been waiting for you. $100 but you will have non-Euclidean nightmares.
Indeed. And worse, wealthy get a discount on everything - an obvious example being that f you have lots of money you don’t need to get a car loan or even a mortgage. More likely you are the one, indirectly, making the loans and earning interest for the huge effort you expended being wealthy.
For the morons out there: No, this does not mean high prices are good. It just means low prices can sometimes be bad if certain principles aren’t in play. You’re welcome.
- lower prices until other small businesses close down
- increase the price back
- everyone needs to buy from you because you are the only supplier
- profit
It’s even more insidious:
- Lower prices to drive out all competition
- Become largest local employer
- Keep wages low, people don’t have many other jobs to choose
- Everyone has to buy from you, and those working for you are stuck in their low-wage jobs
- Excessive profits
If the majority of Walmart shoppers and employees are MAGAts, then carry on shopping there and I hope they stay loyal while Mango Mussolini drives prices through the ceiling fan with shit spraying all over the place.
It should be illegal to pay people wages that require them to take public assistance
If your employees have to use public assistance then you should be on the hook for the assistance and the administrative cost of that assistance.
And when that hits 10 percent or more of your workforce then the government forces a union.
We’ve let the corporations fuck around long enough.
Don’t worry, they will fix the issue by eliminating piblic assistance
Walmart is bad for small town America. And the rest of America too.
Their stores extract local spending dollars and transfer them to shareholders who live in gated communities.
If they paid more in wages than a store made in profits they would close the store.
Yes to the first part, but the second part is just how businesses work? If your gross income is lower than your expenses you’re operating at a loss and it’s not sustainable. Wages should absolutely be higher, though. Quick back-of-the-napkin math shows that last year Walmart made a net profit of over 11 billion dollars and employed just over 2 million people. They could boost every single employee’s pay by $5000 annually and still make a billion dollars in profit.
Yes it is exactly how corporations work. That is the root cause of the problem.
It should be no suprise that the corporations are sucking the country dry.
The need is for an economic implementation that does not lead to death by parasite to most of the land.
They could boost every single employee’s pay by $5000 annually and still make a billion dollars in profit.
Except for the corporate employees / managers, which get stock options that are much higher than $5,000 annually ofc
Sounds like a national security threat. More directly threatening on a daily basis than many other things they claim are threats.
More threatening than Luigi?
Companies failing to properly protect the foodchain have killed hundreds. But you don’t see any CEOs in chains.
Makes sense. Take 10 small businesses with a owner/manager and say 5 employees. 50 employees. Local convenience store, small grocer, whatever. Not all at min wage, the owner/manager are going to be making a bit more. WalMart rolls in, kills those businesses, now you have four overworked managers managing 40 overworked employees at bottom dollar wages. The other 16 had to go find something else or get welfare services or whatver.
A very simplified version, but I could see how this brings down wages.
This just in, studies rediscover basic functions of an economy. Again.
A few more studies bro, just a few more. We are sure to figure this stuff out if we just do another study.
Someone should look into this capitalism thing and see if its creating any problems, surprised noone has thought about it till now
Oh yeah, we should do a study…
Wait a minute, I am on to you grant boi…
The frustrating thing is: Sometimes the same economists who do these studies tend to magically forget their own findings a week later when they are interviewed by some news channel about what the government should do about x or y. Because they can’t live with the fact that some of the base principles and beliefs of their own school of thought are deeply flawed.
Or, more likely the economic incentives that they are exposed to (academia, grants and the politics of both) reward this behaviour.
The principals are understood, I remember reading about similar issues with the Dutch East India Company (you know that recent company that just went under in 1799) back in school. The reason we are where we are is that people (economists often try to say otherwise, but are included in this set) in the system we have are incentivised to not actually change things, but to come up with reasons why they should stay this way.
