NationStates Jolt Archive

The new ted turner topic is out:

Resolved: That big box retailers benefit the communities in which they are located.

Any thoughts?

Ted Turner has only one way to preserve his honor.
http://www.inoe.ur.ru/kino_files/hara-kiri.mpg

Ted Turner has only one way to preserve his honor.
http://www.inoe.ur.ru/kino_files/hara-kiri.mpg

sorry, my firewall's acting up again. what's in it?

"Big box" retaliers sell products for lower prices in the areas that they operate, which increase the buying power of consumers in that community and therefore stimulate the local (and greater) economy by enabling people to buy more goods for the same amount of money.

They also provide a larger number of jobs to the community as well as increase the number in other fields due to the spillover effect from the additional business they attract. Overall, they are excellent for the economy of any town. Furthermore, they also increase growth in the logistics sector, boosting employment in the transportation/warehousing industry which pays on average 35% more than the average employee in retail

For all the whining about evil Wal-Mart putting "mom and pop" stores out of business, the number of people affected by the closure of these small stores is extremely small, and the number of people who stand to benefit is considerably greater. Overall, large retailers are a benefit to the places in which they operate, and provide a necessary competitive force in communities that would normally not have those options. Of the 15.3 million people employed in retail (which, I might add is only about 11% of the US nonfarm payroll employment), the vast majority either work for large retailers or work in stores unaffected or even helped by the presence of these facilities.

sorry, my firewall's acting up again. what's in it?
Just some ritual suicide.

"Big box" retaliers sell products for lower prices in the areas that they operate, which increase the buying power of consumers in that community and therefore stimulate the local (and greater) economy by enabling people to buy more goods for the same amount of money.

They also put stores 47% of the retail stores in the area they move into out of business within ten years. Then you have companies like Wal-Mart which are now so huge they can afford to sell cd's for $10, which is $2 less than what they buy them for. This will severey damage the other music stores, which will mean many will go out of business. When those stores go out of business, there will be more poverty, meaning more crime, and more death.

They also provide a larger number of jobs to the community as well as increase the number in other fields due to the spillover effect from the additional business they attract. Overall, they are excellent for the economy of any town. Furthermore, they also increase growth in the logistics sector, boosting employment in the transportation/warehousing industry which pays on average 35% more than the average employee in retail.

Excellent for the town? When there are more people on the streets and more people at lower-paying jobs?

Big box retailers may attract businesses, but only then put them out of business through competition. And when the employees are put out of those higher-paying jobs, they have to go work at a lower-paying job.

Also remember that they are detrimental to the government's money in that area. They put other stores out of business, meaning the government loses sales tax revenues from those companies.

For all the whining about evil Wal-Mart putting "mom and pop" stores out of business, the number of people affected by the closure of these small stores is extremely small, and the number of people who stand to benefit is considerably greater. Overall, large retailers are a benefit to the places in which they operate, and provide a necessary competitive force in communities that would normally not have those options. Of the 15.3 million people employed in retail (which, I might add is only about 11% of the US nonfarm payroll employment), the vast majority either work for large retailers or work in stores unaffected or even helped by the presence of these facilities.

Not many stand to benefit. Only those who come out with enough extra money to get a few wants do.

Competition from big box retailers is not "necessary." Once a big box retailer shuts down competitors, it can put prices at whatever they want, and people like us who live here in Elko, Nevada can't get goods from anywhere else within a good 100 miles.

The stores they put out are the ones in the same category. Though more people may be employed at other jobs, more will become employed at retail as wal-mart and others expand.

They also put stores 47% of the retail stores in the area they move into out of business within ten years. Then you have companies like Wal-Mart which are now so huge they can afford to sell cd's for $10, which is $2 less than what they buy them for. This will severey damage the other music stores, which will mean many will go out of business. When those stores go out of business, there will be more poverty, meaning more crime, and more death.

Excellent for the town? When there are more people on the streets and more people at lower-paying jobs?

Big box retailers may attract businesses, but only then put them out of business through competition. And when the employees are put out of those higher-paying jobs, they have to go work at a lower-paying job.

Also remember that they are detrimental to the government's money in that area. They put other stores out of business, meaning the government loses sales tax revenues from those companies.

The overwhelming majority of people do not work for retailers. The percentage that would be adversely affected is so low that it is virtually insignificant; most people who work in retail already work in big stores. If anything, the increased purchasing power increases living standards for everyone and will create more jobs in other sectors due to reduced costs, which enable companies to expand themselves faster and hire more.

Small businesses benefit the most from Walmart/Sam's Club/Costco because they can buy large quantities of goods for far less, which also increases employment and enables them to grow faster, strengthening the economy.

Also, most retail jobs even in small stores are low paying; the only people doing well are the owners and managers, and they will often take jobs at the new retailers. The thought that most small retailers pay a "living wage" as opposed to the minimum wage of Wal-Mart is ridiculous; most people who get a higher wage deserve it and would recieve similar pay in other stores. Small companies don't waste more money than is necessary on their employees unless they stand to benefit.

Competition is the backbone of our economy; if a company can offer their product for a lower price than their competitors, there is absolutely nothing wrong in putting the uncompetitive companies out of business, because it ultimately results in better quality and lower prices for consumers.

Not many stand to benefit. Only those who come out with enough extra money to get a few wants do.

Competition from big box retailers is not "necessary." Once a big box retailer shuts down competitors, it can put prices at whatever they want, and people like us who live here in Elko, Nevada can't get goods from anywhere else within a good 100 miles.

The stores they put out are the ones in the same category. Though more people may be employed at other jobs, more will become employed at retail as wal-mart and others expand.

Wal-Mart is big, but it isn't big enough to cause retail to grow faster than the rest of the job market; in fact, retail employment is lower now than it was in 2000 and the hardest losses in the industry were felt in the large retailers.

However, the large retailers create jobs in the logistics sector of the economy, which pays considerably more than the jobs displaced by the arrival of large retailers in many areas. However, it requires more education and training to work in these fields, which means that many people in retail may not be able to get them; however, those that do are better off than they were in their old occupation. Generally, the trade in jobs is net beneficial to the economy.

If a retailer charges prices higher than the market rate because of lack of competition, they are likely breaking the law because that constitutes price gouging; companies that do that need to have legal action taken against them to prevent a bait-and-switch manipulation of the market. Actions like this are the domain of government regulation and are not a systemic result of retailers but rather a location-specific problem.