digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at 21st-century-citizen.com

I guess you get what you ask for… [PIC]

21st-century-citizen.com — Should we be willing to spend more if it means that the extra money goes into the local economy in the form of higher local wages and payments to farmers and other, less-distant producers? Or should we all just shop at Walmart? What do you think?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mentol, on 10/31/2007, -20/+2Funny
  • prashantpawar, on 11/04/2007, -37/+64Burying it!

    It should say, "Here stood a local store wiped off by another store in competition under the Free Market provided by American Liberty!"
    • PATSCRU, on 10/31/2007, -22/+11and that's why my vote will never go to ron paul....the free market is all well and good, but no holds barred free market will make the economic climate even more favorable than it is now. If you take power from the federal government, mega-corporations will be more than happy to step into the power vaccuum.
      I for one think that hard work, a strong labor force, and made in the USA products are what made this country the super power that it became after world war 2. Mom and Pop stores are symbols of the american dream.....Wal-Mart closing those stores down is a symbol of what has happened to that dream.
      • nreynolds, on 10/31/2007, -8/+12It's up to the people to stop that. I'm going to keep shopping at Wal-Mart (although I try to avoid it just because it's not a pleasant place to be) because it doesn't hurt me specifically. It's up to the employees to strike and cause change in their work-place. It shouldn't be up to the government(who really really likes Wal-Mart, btw).
        • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -4/+8Why would hte employees strike? Walmart has one of the highest percentages of employee satisfaction around.
          It makes sense too. Most of them are wrking jobs that are not exactly tough to get. So if they didn't like working at Walamrt, they would quit.
        • sutro33, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7"I'm going to keep... because it doesn't hurt me specifically." I'm pretty sure that's the definition of an *****.
      • sleeknerve, on 11/03/2007, -3/+11why does everything on digg have to turn into ron paul
        • sv650touring, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I think I saw an OS flamewar that didn't mention him
      • bratpack8, on 11/01/2007, -4/+12Let me ask you a simple question. Can Wal-Mart, Nike, McDonald's, Home Depot, Lowe's, Costco or any other big or small business FORCE you to buy their products or services or FORCE you to work there? The only way these companies get any power over consumers is through the State. That is, they can get subsidies, targeted tax breaks (very common in local cities and towns), regulations, tariffs, or even can be granted monopoly status (utilities is an example). In a true free market, corporations, small and big, are at the mercy of the consumers. If they don't produce a product or service that the product wants to trade their money for, they don't succeed. Think of a basic trade in a free-market (i.e. no government interference). That trade ONLY occurs if both parties believe what they are getting in return is worth more than what they are giving up, at that particular moment in time. That is why free-market capitalism is a win-win situation, not a zero sum game.
        • CaptainJapan, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Economic situations can be such that you are sort of "forced." Not very many people want to work at mc donalds, wallmart, et al. but do so because they prefer it to being homeless or staving. you are essentially forced to work or shop there if there is no other reasonable alternative. As far as a true free market, Google "Monopoly" and "Cartel" to see why a totally free market is against the interest of the consumer.
          • MonkeyFarts, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Heh, "Google" it. That's ironic, because Google holds its weight in a similar type of oligopoly. Ask the general public the search engines they know, and they'll respond with: Google, Yahoo, and a few will say Ask and MSN Live.
            In response to your comment, you're right. That is, to an extent. As with much of economics, the goal is to reach a type of "equilibrium" point; not too much regulation, but not too little, either. After all, we've learned that laissez-faire economics can be disastrous; just look at the Great Depression.
          • bratpack8, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Why should I google monopoly or cartel? I study economics, and am well aware of what those terms mean, but I'm thinking you may not (I could be wrong). Successful monopolies cannot exist without the power of the State granting them this status or through protection.
            I understand that situations may occur that appear as force, but you are correct in stating that there may not be as many alternatives for some. But that still isn't force. And as I stated originally, which you never bothered to respond to, the reason there aren't many alternatives is because of government interference.
            As to MonkeyFarts, reaching equilibrium? Who gets to decide when we are at equilibrium? The God of Economics? The President? Helicopter Ben?

            And if you believe the Great Depression was caused by the free-market, you really really really need to go do some more research. It was a direct consequence of massive monetary inflation by, guess who? the Federal Reserve throughout the 20's (up until about 1928). And guess what, we are going through that again. Our money supply has increased 800% since 1980 and the boom has to bust at some point. Hope you don't have all your wealth stored in dollars.
      • drjones78, on 10/31/2007, -1/+6Tell me.. if Ron Pauls policies would be such a panacea for the mega-corps, than why doesn't he have their support? I know he doesnt take donations from corporations, but he certainly would be getting much more face time and respect from the mainstream media. Hell, he'd be the most popular candidate.

        He's pro free market (true competition), not a corporatist. Corporations become such powerful forces today because of the entanglement with government.

        And in any case... In a Ron Paul world, the states would take up much of the regulatory roles that the federal government currently handles.
      • Ratteler, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1You're an idiot and deserve the Death camps GuiliNAZI is going to make you build for yourself.
    • Rhino2, on 11/05/2007, -7/+21
      Exactly. With Freedom, you also have the freedom to really ***** up and go out of business. What are these people expecting? Soviet States of America to subsidize them?
      they went out of business for the simple fact that another business was giving consumers more of what they wanted at lower price.

      If the consumer didn't like getting lots of goods for cheap; then they would go else where. No one is forcing these people to shop at walmart.

      These people are shopping at Walmart, because hey; it might suck, but it sucks less then your store and probably cheaper too.
      • lajaw, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1As far as I can tell, most Wal-Mart Supercenters are taxpayer subsidized. So your argument doesn't hold water. If the towns and cities would not subsidize wal-mart with tax breaks and free infrastructure, they too would have to compete on a even scale that you and I must work under.
      • dragonalone1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0right, the reason most people shopping in big stores is they sell cheap stuff.
    • Bodhinature, on 11/03/2007, -3/+69Actually, we don't have a free market. We have a protectionist economy where laws are created that discourage innovation, make it difficult to start a new business or small business, and reward mega-corporations with tax breaks and incentives.
      Wal-mart doesn't operate under a free market system. Wal-mart lobbies for exceptions. And Wal-mart gets them.
      I'm not against big box stores in general, but lets not pretend we have Free Market Capitalism.
      • Rhino2, on 11/05/2007, -1/+6
        True, we don't have a 100% free market... but it's closer then most countries that I know of.
      • Petromyzon, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3So what law says I'm not able to act freely to innovate my patent I'm working on? And yeah, it was real difficult to start my business with $175 bucks and 4 forms. The Small Business Development Center hasn't really been helpful has it? Guess their guidance and that SOHO loan they helped me get won't be of use. The incubator I'm involved with isn't giving me a break at $1.7 per square foot for space? Tax Breaks? I'll have to talk with my accountant on that one. Well, am I still free to dream of Wal-Mart selling some of my products down the road?
        • StGoy, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0Although you do have a good point here, you should cut the sarcasm.
          It's good to have some real informations once in a while instead of a useless mystical rant.
    • Hobbes24, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Hell yes, they forget that the store may have moved in, but it was the local shopers who put them in the noose. They coudln't adapt, they were snuffed out, may seem cold, but that's the way buisness works.
    • saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7Free market? Odd.. my store wasn't offered tons of tax incentives and discounts that Walmart and other big boxers get when they move into the area....
    • tehnico, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1It's a sign of Americas failure to remain competitive and it's failure to innovate. It's not chinas fault, or the consumers. Consumers are doing what they are supposed to. This is supposed to encourage competition in local markets, but small and large business alike are too unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to create a better product. Many large corporations are stuck in a culture of excess. They don't want to do anything to upset their current massive profits without giving any consideration to future profit. They refuse to accept that the old business model which made them millions of dollars is outdated and irrelevant now that china can produce under the same business model for far less.
  • eternal464, on 10/31/2007, -6/+19A fact of life I guess. I'd call it the evolution(and extinction) of business.
    • shupy, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Free market? We haven’t had a free market for more than a century. Big companies get huge tax abatement from local and state taxes and have large accounting staffs to manipulate every construction, leasing and tax break possible. There are a ton of Federal tax abatement programs for companies that open in “target” economic areas, but the local businesses that have always been in the area get nothing. Companies that can import in shipping containers from China pay way less than a small vendor pays from a wholesaler for the same item. When all businesses pay the same tax rate and the same wholesale price for an item, we can gripe about who is charging more. Personally I choose to pay more to get local quality and support my local business. The myth of a free market is that everyone competes on equal ground. Our laws and tax structure are weighed heavily in favor of the mega-corporations. The myth of free trade is that everyone will achieve a higher standard of living. The reality is that countries like America that have traditionally enjoyed a high standard of living are seeing a decrease in the quality of life while emerging third world countries are seeing an increase. Those of you who prefer cheap products resulting from imports feed the huge trade imbalance and weakening of the dollar. Be careful what you wish for. You can get your cheap imported junk and cheap imported food, but realize that as our manufacturing, technology and automotive jobs are exported, sooner or later you too may find the only employment opportunity available is selling that cheap stuff for minimum wage.
  • kbedell, on 10/31/2007, -3/+9The point is to generate a discussion - not push a point of view.
    • LLLSecretChimp, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Because you can't do both.
    • sv650touring, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Give credit where it is due. Compared to the other comment sections I've read to day, this one looks like a freaking mensa discussion.
  • shabumike, on 11/02/2007, -17/+69If you feel very strongly about this move to a more socialist country.

    In America you compete to survive, in most other industrialized nations you share to survive. Love it or leave it.
    • joshuaer, on 10/31/2007, -4/+17If wal-mart could do what it wanted it would hire illegal aliens, pay people to little to live on, lock people in store. give better pay to full time workers but make every one part time, Use the State assistance programs as a health care program, Make people chant wal-mart at the start of the day, Not promote Blacks and woman because the are Black and or woman. Fire people for even talking about or bringing up the Union threaten companies to manufacture goods over seas and fire US worker Oh snap this are already things wal-mart has done!

      just watch this http://www.walmartmovie.com/

      It is about Fair Trade and making our country better not about controlling companies!


    • zybch, on 10/31/2007, -11/+6What a total load of utter crap! You clearly have no ***** idea about how countries other than the US do things!
      Get back in your US-centric hole and stay the ***** there!
      • shabumike, on 10/31/2007, -2/+5You are the fool. I have lived in many countries and can tell by your rhetoric that you have a very limited understanding reality and are very young.
        • sv650touring, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1you should read his Mac VS PC comments
      • AlexanderZero, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1He said: "If you feel very strongly about this move to a more socialist country."

        I don't see the problem here. There are several socialist countries and fewer capitalist ones. Why should the US have to be socialist too? Clearly, you have no tolerance for other parts of the world and the way they do things. Nobody is making anybody live anywhere, so shove it.
    • sonycam, on 10/31/2007, -0/+22I think there's a problem when big businesses get so powerful that they start to influence and control politics and therefore have a firm grasp of the country. As I understand it, several big companies are doing this in America right now. Competition is good, but when it borders on corruption, someone or something needs to step in.
    • onwardknave, on 11/05/2007, -1/+2The U.S. Constitution doesn't mandate a capitalist economy. Nothing says we can't return to a strong, worker-centric, strong-union economy and thrive. Massive media conglomerates and Madison Avenue millionaires stand to lose the most. Always, always, always consider the motives behind the message. Each time people buy at massive chain stores whose messages are "buy here, we're cheaper," don't forget to finish their sentence, like "...because we use overseas child labor," or "because we can afford to lower our prices long enough to put that mom & pop store out of business because government won't enforce anti-trust laws so politicians can claim to be 'business-friendly' instead." Harsh? Yes, but that's the reality of capitalism. It just so happens that in my vision of an ideal world, progress is not a function of how many people had to be sacrificed to reach it.
      • diggduggjoe, on 11/05/2007, -0/+2Though, capitalism is not a mandate, property rights are. That pretty much assures capitalism, unless you expect people to go against their own self interest. If, you enforce equality, we all lose our freedom.
        • rustintable, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0By that reasoning societies and even multicellular life would never have evolved. I hear this argument often repeated but it is obviously mathematically disprovable. The reason for social organization is because working together we out compete those who are completely independent. Acting in your self interest you help other people work for a company and even pay taxes. And you can't ensure your freedom unless you have the rule of law to enforce your freedom. Otherwise I could enslave you if i get the chance.
          • sv650touring, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I didn't see any math at all in your comment
    • knobtwiddler, on 10/31/2007, -3/+1shut up
    • superdoofus, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1how is it a "free market" when walmart gets offset property taxes? sorry, but you're full of *****.
    • fugazied, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Welcome to the United States of America, sponsored by Walmart's chinese employees, starbucks underpaid workers and McDonalds working poor!
  • jthomp3120, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7where is this?
  • HunterTV, on 11/02/2007, -3/+75"Welcome to Costco. I love you."
  • combatchuck, on 10/31/2007, -1/+20What the hell? 8 diggs and it's down?
  • Ironman69, on 10/31/2007, -14/+8Down with Wal Mart
  • zmjone2992, on 10/31/2007, -11/+4dead at 56 diggs
    • Bodhinature, on 10/31/2007, -5/+3Oops. Guess that makes you a moron.
      • zmjone2992, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1except it is still dead... asshat
  • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -22/+49Local stores DO NOT pay higher wages. They pay far lower wages, and give far fewer benefits. And please...pleaes find me one local store that was thriving until Walmart showed up. You won't find any. The local mom and pop stores are dying whether Walmart comes or not. They are better off euthanized.
    • zybch, on 10/31/2007, -7/+7They may not have been thriving, but what we had was a lot of stores all existing and all making enough money to stay open and give us variety, personalized service and a friendly place to shop.
      The big Xmart stores kill off all of these competitors, and then have the whole area captive! And BOY do they pay lower wages!! Local stores might not pay 12.75 times the minimum wage, but they pay better wages than if you were to slave away in walmart for 13 hours a day!
      • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -3/+6Making BARELY enough money to suvive. Not to really give the owners a good living.

        As for your last part...*****. Dude..I know you are from Australia, so stop acting like you have any idea about the US. Small local stores almost always pay MINIMUM wage for their monkey jobs. You go to a local supermarket and the cashier is NOT making $8 an hour, even if they have been there for over a year. Yet a cashier or stock boy at Walamrt with a year expeirence very well MAY be making $8 an hour. A liveable wage? No. But that is because the job they are performing is not WORTH a liveable wage. They are doing something that a monkey could do.

        Why do you think that Walamrt was not speaking out against the increase in the Federeal Minimum Wage? Meanwhile Target, K-mart, Sears AND small stores were saying it would kill them? Simple. Becuase Walmart's salaries were alreay well above the proposed new minimum wage. And their starting salaries were VERY close to it. And if you think that a local 20 employee store is giving their employees ANY benefits at all, you have no business debating this topic anymore because you are completely ignorant of the facts. Walmart gives even part time employees benefits after 6 months. You are NEVER going to find that on one of your "Main Street USA" stores. And you weren't going to find that 30 years ago either.
        • expert01, on 11/05/2007, -2/+1You have broken one of the Digg Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT REPLY TO A REPLY OF THINE OWN COMMENT
      • Mike668, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0If Walmart has taught us anything its that the general population values lower prices over "variety, personalized service and a friendly place to shop."
    • Firehed, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6I don't know where you live, but that's far from true near me. Thankfully, most of the people where I live aren't such cheap bastards that they'll happily watch a local business that's been around for half a century go under in order to save eight cents. We like our local business, thank you very much.
      • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -2/+3Oh...I see.. it is that "save 8 cents" crap...WEll, it is far more than 8 cents. It is often 40% or more. And if you think that in the majority (or even a significant portrion) of the country that life is like Pleasantville USA circa 1950 with the thriving Main Streets with hte tiny little boutiques, you are sadly mistaken.
    • superdoofus, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5ok. how about my dad's hardware store in minnesota? walmart moved in one zipcode over, lobbied for no property taxes and got it after backroom dealings with council members (the meetings were attended by many from the outraged local business community...and most of those that voted for walmart were not re-elected, but by then it was too late), commercial property taxes rose up to 32% for all nearby businesses to cover it (let alone an 8% increase for home-owners), and that made it financially impossible for many of the local businesses to remain profitable no matter how much they tried to increase their sales. "free market" my ass.
      sidenote: walmart has tried to open a store in many neighborhoods in new york city and has been shot the ***** down every time because the politicians here have been bought already by many different local businesses. again: "free market" my ass. this is the real world, and walmart exited the free market when they started courting government legislation.
  • FuzzyBunny, on 11/01/2007, -13/+17Cry me a river
  • freefoodisgood, on 10/31/2007, -9/+10So?
  • tacojohn48, on 11/02/2007, -2/+36Mirror - http://www.flickr.com/photos/thejoshpayton/1409826 ...
  • tfedullo, on 10/31/2007, -5/+2http://www.21st-century-citizen.com.nyud.net:8090/ ...
    http://www.21st-century-citizen.com.nyud.net:8080/ ...
    mirrors
  • cmpshotty, on 11/02/2007, -13/+61So I'm supposed to subsidize these businesses by paying more money for the same ***** just because they are "Mom and Pop" or whatever other ***** they want to call it. It's a business, plain and simple, big or small. Compete for my money, don't expect it.
    • Hobbes24, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4agreed.

      if the public really gave 2 ***** about the "family" touch, wouldn't we be shoping there? That's what i ***** though.
    • saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1I don't care about that facet. I care about the subsidies and tax breaks that those big boxers get. Gee.. I could drop my prices as well if I had those kind of incentives.
  • kent1146, on 10/31/2007, -4/+7http://bestpicever.com/pic-1619-You-get-what-you-a ...
  • phaedoHD, on 10/31/2007, -5/+11mirror: http://www.ratemyeverything.net/post/5175/Free_Mar ...
  • Herostratos, on 10/31/2007, -7/+16"Is it good for society that we are driving down costs by moving our purchases to Mega-Stores like Walmart that source their products and services all over the world — and that tend to push their operating costs onto local communities where they can (in terms of demanding lower taxes, encouraging employees to apply for social services, denying many employees decent health insurance)?"

    Why, yes, of course. All economic progress is about producing things cheaper. Cheaper goods for everyone benefits all in the end.
    • Bodhinature, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3And that, of course, is a paradigm with absolutely zero proof of truth to back it. Lets try a new paradigm.
    • ScottMitchell, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Cheaper prices are usually considered an economic benefit because they typically reflect increased productivity, and productivity gains are what drive economic growth.
    • silverchrysalis, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2maybe cheaper goods seem to benefit people in the short run, but look at our economy of easy disposal. is it because goods are so easy to come by? if things cost just a bit more, maybe we would conserve a bit more and the landfills wouldn't fill up so fast.
      • frostieDude, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Landfills filling up aren't a problem. We have plenty of unused space for landfills. Carbon emissions are a problem. Landfills aren't.
    • rustintable, on 10/31/2007, -1/+0Well the economists have been telling us this crap for a long time now eh? And we tried their advice. I think we can do much better. We have much better technology and more information can't we design a better economy?
  • xdeliriumx, on 10/31/2007, -5/+1I am asking for a new link.
  • noahhoward, on 10/31/2007, -6/+1Well since I don't have the resources to do it I'll post an idea. What about combining the system. Build a massive supply chain like Wal-Mart but rather than massive outlet stores serve through a large group of mom and pops that are free to set their own rules and prices. Think along the lines of CafePress, one company handles the production and the supply chain then a bunch of different people apply their own brand and add a markup.
    • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -1/+7So, you want to dictate to Walmart where they get their inventory from? Basically making them pay more, which makes us pay more.
      Yeah...GREAT idea!
      • noahhoward, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Nooo... I want to put wal-mart out of business by working with small business so they can afford to compete with Wal-Mart. What school taught you to read?
    • rustintable, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0If you make more then paying more is the same.

      Money can be exchanged for goods and services...
  • Calculon, on 10/31/2007, -6/+5I can't wait till the Wal-Mart branded "scoops" are driving through the poor slums rounding people up to be turned into Soylent Gre.. I mean Wal-Mart brand baby food and discount sport drinks.
  • meridian300, on 10/31/2007, -16/+15All I can say is that unions don't do ***** for you and take money out of your pocket each month.
    • Urusai, on 10/31/2007, -4/+9Maybe you're confusing the union with the government...
    • neckfire, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Not true. California nurses union has nurses making more than residents at some hospitals. Unions if run well can put lot's of money in workers pockets.
      • diggduggjoe, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1That money comes from the patients and that ups the cost of health care. I am not saying that any group is bad, but the money comes from real people.
  • speakingdreams, on 10/31/2007, -4/+15Guess they should have lowered their prices
  • littlemarcho, on 10/31/2007, -1/+12Cant blame the communists or the terrorists on this one!
  • bingobongony, on 10/31/2007, -12/+17I love it when morons say "anti-union" as if the average person is considering that a BAD thing.
    This isn't 1950. The average American has not considered unions to be a good thing (for most jobs) in at least 20 years.
    • Calcularius, on 10/31/2007, -4/+2Why? Oh, right, you don't know because you're wrong. You fell for the corporate propaganda!
    • neckfire, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Jesus- Every comment you have ever made is stupid.
    • busterbros, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1Unions rolls are shrinking every year because they're obsolete in the modern world. People aren't being chained to sewing machines and being forced to work 16 hour shifts anymore. If you want to make more money and have more job security, then get a goddamn education and work hard, don't extort your employer by striking every year or two.
  • erkokite, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10There is only one solution:
    We have to destroy the heart of Wal Mart.
  • bratpack8, on 10/31/2007, -2/+42First of all, it's not Wal-Mart and the big box stores that put mom & pop stores out of business, it is the consumers and their buying decisions that do that. Unfortunately, we are not a true free-market (i.e. no government intervention) and the big companies use the power of the State to get a huge advantage in many different ways. Targeted tax breaks, typically at the local level, are often granted to these stores. So they pay no or lower taxes while mom and pop's pay higher. Eminent domain is used sometimes as well, getting these large corporations cheap land. On a higher level, there are subsidies, government-guaranteed loans (Import-Export Bank), tariffs, regulations and all sorts of protectionism that they lobby for in order to keep competition away. Let's level the playing field, let a true free-market emerge, get government out of what should be simple trades between businessmen and consumers. Then only the businesses that produce a product or service that consumers are willing to trade for will survive!
  • Ibox, on 11/03/2007, -1/+21I wonder if that sign was made by a local sign shop, or a larger catalog company which would be cheaper????
    • Company_Man, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Dude, photoshop, internet, ... ?
  • jjmac, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3I don't think the point of this post was to question whether or not we have a free market. I believe the point is when we knowingly buy something (almost everything) that was not made in America, the end result is that we ship our money to other countries. That's not brain surgery to figure out.
  • mizzaxx, on 10/31/2007, -2/+6The big bog stores do not only put the local stores out of business, they destroy local economies and culture while degrading the environment. I doubt that the minimum-wage paid employees in that store do much to their local economy, and none of wallmart's profits go back to the town where it is located. In addition, locally made products reflect the local culture and and traditions, which are not featured at wallmart. And locally made products are made locally, so there is no shipping involved, meaning a much reduced use of fossil fuels in the making. So is it worth it to pay a couple more bucks at the local store? If you don't want to completely eradicate your local culture, environment, economy and not even mentioning the unfair conditions of workers in China that is encouraged by shopping at big box stores, then I'd say it's worth it.
  • jersey, on 11/01/2007, -0/+15This is a work of art by Norm Magnusson. It's part of his current exhibition sponsored by The Aldrich Museum, in CT.

    http://aldrichart.org/exhibitions/magnusson.php

    Pretty interesting shows at that museum.
    • SkepticJoker, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I just went there yesterday!
    • busterbros, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Holy crap! An informative comment. Thank you.
  • sirbeta, on 10/31/2007, -8/+6Please... It's not as if small stores paid their employees much better. I'll get what I need as cheap as I can get it. I'm not rolling in money right now to be fronting up marked up prices because there's no one to compete with them. That is, until a Walmart shows up and teaches them their pricing model doesn't work anymore. Bury me down all you want, I don't really feel sorry for small stores being replaced by Walmart.
    • Leomarth, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Wal-Mart cashiers in my area get paid $7.50. The two local stores within a three mile radius pay their cashiers minimum wage; which is $6.75 for Arizona.
  • JackondaRocks, on 11/01/2007, -10/+6Owners of mom and pop shops should get an education and have a real career, instead of owning a store that sells diapers and candy.
    • Namco, on 11/01/2007, -3/+4I don't get it. I mean I get that this post is a parody of an extremely ignorant douche, but I'm just not seeing the humor...... wait.... nevermind.
    • saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Go back to your McDonalds FatBurger and welcome Generica and then herd on back over to Wallyworld for more crap.
  • DtotheC34, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2so thats where our "education department" money goes...
    • AlexanderZero, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately the scholars never took Government.
  • stuartbryant, on 11/01/2007, -5/+5Yeah! Support the inefficient!
    • saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1Actually, most businesses want the opposite... quite subsidizng Big Box.
  • Calcularius, on 11/01/2007, -0/+17I go into a Walmart when I want to be reminded what the movie 'Idiocracy' was like.
  • Scheissen, on 10/31/2007, -1/+2wow I expected different, socialist responses rather than these logical libertarian views.
  • ZenFountain, on 10/31/2007, -0/+7The only problem I have with big-box retailers is the tax breaks they often get to move into an area. It's good for the city council that wants to raise more revenue or supposedly bring bring more jobs, but it does make it harder for local business to compete. On the other hand, local businesses should not be protected from big-box and the free market should decide what is good and what is bad, not the government. Eventually we'll come around to the fact that more cheap crap does not equal more happiness or quality of life.
    • Leomarth, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3As a Libertarian, I'm with you. I hate seeing Wal-Mart get free infrastructure upgrades and tax breaks. They should not receive any special treatment under the law.
  • kessel, on 10/31/2007, -7/+5***** unions

  • Woomanchu, on 10/31/2007, -3/+3Why is there such a protectionist movement going on now? Not only from places all around the world like China, but from places in Arkansas. We have had some of the best economical years because of the free market and everyone is better off because of it. Especially the educated and the willingness to adapt under any circumstance. It is just getting scary how many people only want people from their own community doing business with each other. It is woefully inefficient and will drag down the economy greatly. God for Wal Mart for developing a business plan that has been this successful, but if anyone pays attention their growth has been minimal for a while and there is a chance for a new business model to come through and become wildly successful.
  • wh0wants2know, on 10/31/2007, -6/+3I used to always try to shop at the local stores, but here's my story that made me really change my mind:
    So I want to rent a movie one night. I go to the locally owned "mom and pop" video rental place to get a movie on dvd. I get there, and they do not have the movie that I want on DVD or otherwise. Ok, that's fine, I think of another movie. Don't have that. Ok, yet another movie. Don't have that either. Finally, I think of one that they have and it happens to be on DVD and in stock. Ok, not the original movie I wanted, but close enough. So I go to rent it and they ask me if I have an account and I say no, but my mom and I have been going here for years and she's probably listed. They say no, I need my own account, I say fine, set me up. So they get my driver's license (which I haven't had time to change the address on since I moved into the neighborhood the previous week) and they tell me that it appears that I do not live in the neighborhood. I tell them that I just moved here and give them my address. Apparently, that's not good enough, and they require some sort of proof that I live in the general area. Of course I have nothing on me with my new address that they'll accept (why would I? I don't think I'd even gotten any mail yet at that point) so they won't give me a membership, even though they know that my mom has been going there for years, I have the same last name as her, and they have her account information on file (and I can provide all details to that account as well). So I say fine, forget it, I don't care anymore, you're making this way too difficult. I leave the store and go to the local Blockbuster video. They have the first movie I wanted in stock and on DVD and it takes 5 minutes for me to create a new account and rent the movie that I actually wanted instead of my fourth preference. In conclusion, I have absolutely no pity for the "mom and pop" stores that are not able to provide the same level of service and value that the "big evil walmart stores" are able to. The fact is that if they can't give me some reason to shop there, I will go where I can get the same stuff for the best price. If they are able to get me a superior product and know what they're talking about more than the "big guys" (like my local plant nursery for a good example) then I'll go to the locally owned mom-and-pop store, but if they can't hack it, then they don't get my business and for good reason.
    • MadOgre, on 10/31/2007, -1/+4So this one operation is an indictment of all mom and pop shops?
      I'm an outfitter for a sporting good store... I sell guns and gear for hunting everything on the planet. We have better prices, service and inventory than that of Sportsman's Whorehouse, Cabella's, or Bass Pro Shops. Everyone I work with knows his craft, has been there, hunted and eaten it. Try to get that level of experience at the big box stores when you ask what load you should use for Red Buck or Kudu or Elk. Or if they could even just mount a scope for you.
      • nogChoco, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure the McJobber-clerk in the big store can recommend a better porno than mom or pop, though (unless mom's wearing something kinky).
    • barc0001, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2OOH! Anecdotal evidence is always the best... or not. Here, let me provide you with a startlingly similar tale that goes the opposite way. In Greater Vancouver here we have many branches of a large national movie store, Rogers Video. We were shopping up at a strip mall that had one of these outlets there one night a few months back and my daughter wanted to rent some game for the Wii. So we took the rental up to the counter, and since I was paying using debit they told me there would be a $50 deposit taken off my account to cover the cost of the game in case we steal it. I said "excuse me?", so she launched in to an explanation about how this was now corporate policy as there was a rash of people signing up accounts, renting 4 or 5 games on them and never coming back. I asked the clerk if they get a lot of people who have had an account with their company for 15 years deciding out of the blue to steal a single $50 game. She said no, but she still would have to do the deposit. I said, fine whatever. We went home, daughter played the game, weekend was over, I dropped the game off in the night deposit slot. A week later, the $50 is still not back in my account. I call the store wondering what the hell the deal is, get told that I have come back with my debit card to reverse the charge. I ask why the hell this wasn't explained to me when I rented the game, they have no adequate answer. Another thing I should point out is that this particular Rogers Video is a bit of a drive for me, as that weekend we were traveling around the town when we stopped there. It's about a 20 minute drive each way. I get there, I get the charge reversed, and I cancel my account right there on the spot. Customer of 15 years, no more. When the clerk asked my why, I explained this whole $50 fiasco, and then mentioned that I normally rent games at a place in Langley that's locally owned, I get the rentals for half the cost ($5 for a game for 2 nights on a weekend, plus they throw in a 2 for 1 rental for free with each new game), AND, most importantly, I walk up to the counter with the games at the local place, don't even need a membership card, just flash my driver's license and that's it. No deposit, no hassle. So in this case, big national chain sucks ass, local store provides better service and cheaper prices, inspiring more loyalty.

      If you're ever in Langley and need to rent a game, the place's name is Willow Video across the street from Willowbrook Mall. Good place.
    • Mike668, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0While this is not always the case, I have also found that big corporate retail stores generally operate a lot more efficiently and because of that, usually have better customer service. Mom and pop stores usually have friendlier employees but also have antiquated systems unable to take care of them, like we heard in the story above. Corporations spend millions of dollars studying what their customers want and how to make them happy. This ranges from how they handle returns to how people are greeted as they walk in. Mom and Pop stores go on their gut and often go with what will make them the most money in the short term (the WORST return policies I have ever seen are in Mom and Pop stores).

      Of course, there are always exceptions.
  • iloveazngurlzs, on 10/31/2007, -5/+8wow. i feel like i am at a republican convention listen to you fool ramble.

    One guy here mentioned local economy. Thats the point and the purpose. Look how ***** most of our cities really are... I come from San Jose, tech capital (atleast was) of the world... Ive seen my city evolve from a mere 400,000 to 1 million in six years. Now i am in Chico. Small college town, 1 walmart, 1 costco, 1 target and a ***** mall. We all shop at mom and pop shops, and its clear by the community that we all thrive together and support each other. Even the thugs and addicts (lotta drugs and gangsters here) see the importance of it. Wallmart isnt thriving here. Sure the city isnt some spectacular sight, but with such a large influx of rich college students, people seem to understand that we should help these small places, keep REAL competition alive.

    WALLMART IS NOT REAL COMPETITION. and that is what YOU the consumer does not seem to understand. walmart is a monopoly, and that is what makes our "free market" good. We stopped AT&T once, we stopped Microsoft. we can stop walmart.
    • ibookfast, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Chico is my beer 'mecca'... love me some Sierra Nevada Pale ale. oh yea, f*#k Walmart.
    • shoop008, on 10/31/2007, -1/+1if Wal-Mart is a monopoly then what are Target, Best Buy, K-mart, Sears, Big Lots, Koll's and however many other big box stores there are? 400,000 to 1 million in 6 years? really? A quick google shows that the population grew steadily from 400,000 to 1 million over 40 years. Then you say you move to a college town full of rich students. So in a town full of rich people, Wal-mart isn't doing that well. Gee, that is odd. Rich people don't shop at Wal-mart. Who would of thunk it? We didn't stop AT&T, they split and then reformed. We didn't stop Microsoft. They just paid a small fine and was done. Wal-Mart is not a monopoly. In Gainesville, FL they wouldn't let Wal-Mart open a super center because they said it would hurt local grocers. There is one local grocer in Gainesville, there are 3 Publixes, 3 Albertson's, 2 Winn Dixies, and 3 Cash'n'Carry's. I seriously doubt that if that one local grocer can compete with all those chains a Walmart would have an effect on their business. I think its more like all these other national chains don't want Walmart to open in their market because they charge 20% more in Gainesville than they do in towns where they have to compete with a Walmart.
    • Mike668, on 11/01/2007, -0/+0Wow! Very interesting that I found this comment, because I also live in Chico, Ca and have for 20 years. Walmart isn't thriving? Do I have to remind you that in a town of 100k people they are building a second WalMart (closing a locally owned golf course) and converting the current WalMart into a supercenter (or whatever the big WalMart is called) AND pushing to build another Walmart to support the small town of Paradise which is only a 10 minute drive away? Corporations are gobbling this town up, and other than the hippies downtown and the liberal college students, everyone in town LOVES it. How can you tell? People keep shopping there. We get a new big chain store every month and can now support two WalMarts in a town where you can get anywhere in 20 minutes on a bicycle.
  • tlo182, on 10/31/2007, -3/+5Why put down WalMart when IKEA embodies the same "rape and pllage local businesses" philosophy with their ***** furniture? Because WalMart is American and it's cool to hate American *****. But Sweden's cool - who cares if they're doing the exact same thing as walmart, people will shop at IKEA and put down Walmart when they're both doing the exact same thing to local business. Bloody hypocrites.
  • atomic811, on 10/31/2007, -3/+2no
  • ibookfast, on 10/31/2007, -2/+9There is no such thing as a "free-market", there are many markets. some black, some highly subsidized, some highly regulated, some oppressed. laws are made by and for the rich, and don't forget most big time wealth is inherited. Social/economic mobility is mostly mythical in order to maintain the status quo. "Don't f*$k with the rich I might get there.", and on it goes. That is until the top gets so rich/heavy the middle cracks and the whole thing comes tumbling down. We now live under record levels of concentrated wealth, by design.
    • webcite1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Fools can't or won't see that! You are right!
  • webcite1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Buy products that are American made by Co's. that are American owned! End imports of products and end exports of jobs!
  • phenolholic, on 10/31/2007, -7/+3::rubs index finger with thumb:: see this? this is the world's smallest violin playing for all the stores that closed down because their overpriced crap paid for the owner's hummer
    • saigumi, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1Owner's Hummer?!?!? Hahahahahahahahahaha.....
      Oh, hahaha...
      The higher price isn't usually there to rip you off, it is there to pay for the higher rent as the spot isn't subsidized like Walmarts. It is there sometimes to be able to buy health programs for the employees. It is there to pay the higher cost of goods from distributors as most small businesses don't have direct discount ties to Chinese companies that are specially allowed to pay lower wages and work people harder because they are making products from Walmart.

      Wow, at thinking, you pretty much suck.
  • TylerDurden76, on 10/31/2007, -2/+2Hey, I'd gladly shop at a Mom and Pop store. That is if the mom and pop store were open at convenient hours for me, or if the mom and pop store would actually carry some variety of items.

    The mom and pop hardware store I used to shop at closed by 5:30PM, and never had anything in stock I needed to work on my home. So I had to go to Home Depot, which was open reasonable hours and had what I needed. So in this case, yeah, ***** the mom and pop store.
  • Haha71687, on 10/31/2007, -2/+1lol how many protectionists have taken macroeconomics? Cry me a river if you can't compete.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.