I joined this forum less than three weeks ago and have been to Wal-Mart twice since then. 8-)

This is crazy, I left Cleveland in 1996 and I don't remember there even being any Wal-Marts....or Targets for that matter (Although I think they were building a target near Southgate USA at the time).  Now Ohio has the most empty stores!  When did they even enter the Ohio market....less than 20 years ago?  That is sad and a shame when a thriving company that has not even been around that long in the state has that many shuttered stores.  The stores like that were Hills, Aames, KMart and Zayres maybe in the early 90's??  Living in Chicago there aren't any, and I wouldn't even know where to find one, therefore I have NEVER stepped foot in one and have no interest.

I would think that even by the early 90's Hill's, Ames, and Zayre's were on their way out, if not gone already.  Big Wheel, another local fave, folded around that time.  Gold Circle was already gone.  Kmart was at it's peak.  There were already a few Walmarts, though.  I remember one in Elyria.  It didn't seem so big and tough then, as they weren't everywhere yet.

This is crazy, I left Cleveland in 1996 and I don't remember there even being any Wal-Marts....or Targets for that matter (Although I think they were building a target near Southgate USA at the time).  Now Ohio has the most empty stores!  When did they even enter the Ohio market....less than 20 years ago?  That is sad and a shame when a thriving company that has not even been around that long in the state has that many shuttered stores.  The stores like that were Hills, Aames, KMart and Zayres maybe in the early 90's??  Living in Chicago there aren't any, and I wouldn't even know where to find one, therefore I have NEVER stepped foot in one and have no interest.

 

There are several walmarts in the chicagoland area.  There is ginormus walmart on North Avenue near (i think the name of the street is) Kosher.  Extremely suburban in style.

Wal-Mart gives jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them.  The difference isn't between $9/hr. and $20/hr; it's between $9/hr and unemployment.

 

Why? Because Wal-Mart makes it hard for locally owned businesses to compete -so they close and then people become unemployed.

Wal-Mart gives jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them. The difference isn't between $9/hr. and $20/hr; it's between $9/hr and unemployment.

 

Why? Because Wal-Mart makes it hard for locally owned businesses to compete -so they close and then people become unemployed.

 

Are you seriously arguing that these locally owned businesses--which offered less selection, charged higher prices, had less leverage with suppliers, and were basically in every way competitively inferior--would seriously have employed more people for higher wages than the Wal-Marts that "replaced" them?

Wal-Mart gives jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them. The difference isn't between $9/hr. and $20/hr; it's between $9/hr and unemployment.

 

Why? Because Wal-Mart makes it hard for locally owned businesses to compete -so they close and then people become unemployed.

 

Are you seriously arguing that these locally owned businesses--which offered less selection, charged higher prices, had less leverage with suppliers, and were basically in every way competitively inferior--would seriously have employed more people for higher wages than the Wal-Marts that "replaced" them?

 

You're contradicting yourself and have made little to no sense at all in this entire debate, but you feel the need to keep going because???

 

... you don't like to back down. No, that's fine - I'm the same exact way.

Are you seriously arguing that these locally owned businesses--which offered less selection, charged higher prices, had less leverage with suppliers, and were basically in every way competitively inferior--would seriously have employed more people for higher wages than the Wal-Marts that "replaced" them?

 

It would be in keep with you're assertion that they are less economically efficient, would it not?

Cincinnatus, where are you arguing I've contradicted myself?

 

As to not making sense, I think that's your own bias refusing to let you admit sound economics.  Wal-Mart's detractors have never made sense to me, but at least I continue to try to engage them, often against my better judgment; some people simply need to be fought.  I'm guessing you feel the same way about me.

 

Are you seriously arguing that these locally owned businesses--which offered less selection, charged higher prices, had less leverage with suppliers, and were basically in every way competitively inferior--would seriously have employed more people for higher wages than the Wal-Marts that "replaced" them?

 

It would be in keep with you're assertion that they are less economically efficient, would it not?

 

No, it really wouldn't.  Economic inefficiency is almost never a good thing.  Those other stores might have employed fewer people for more wages, or the same number of people for lower wages, or fewer people at lower wages, but they would never have employed more people for higher wages.  And, as I said, they were charging higher prices for the exact same products.  A bottle of shampoo is the same whether you're spending $4 for it at Wal-Mart or $6 for it at Bob's General Store.

 

This nostalgia for "mom and pop" stores of yesteryear is absolutely mindboggling to me.  I'm wondering what it is about these stores that people miss so much--the lower selection or the higher prices.  We had two of them in the tiny rural town where I grew up, and they may still be there because we didn't have a Wal-Mart come in close enough to make it really convenient to get to either of them--Heath and Pickerington were the closest, and the Pickerington one didn't come in until years after we moved to the boonies.  Those local stores were basically just dingier versions of convenience stores you'd find at gas stations, with maybe a couple of extra items.  Not many.

 

I have not contradicted myself.  Wal-Mart is a triumph of the free market and should be welcomed and celebrated.  It has increased, not decreased, the standards of living of millions who would otherwise be stuck paying more and getting less at smaller, less efficient retailers.  To the extent it has put any stores out of business, well, that's business.  It's no more unfortunate than the demise of Circuit City.  In addition, Wal-Marts have often <a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/blairsvilledispatch/s_185164.html">increased business for nearby businesses</a> by drawing more people into the area.  See also <a href="http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/06/small-business-surviving-wal-mart.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01retail.html?_r=1">here</a> (from the NYT, no less).  At the very least, their impact is <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOL/is_10/ai_n25121956/">mixed</a>, and doesn't deserve the ire it receives on these boards or in other groupthink-heavy Internet forums.

 

All that mom and pop stores ever offered was the chance to pay an extra middleman.

Cincinnatus, where are you arguing I've contradicted myself?

 

As to not making sense, I think that's your own bias refusing to let you admit sound economics.  Wal-Mart's detractors have never made sense to me, but at least I continue to try to engage them, often against my better judgment; some people simply need to be fought.  I'm guessing you feel the same way about me.

 

Are you seriously arguing that these locally owned businesses--which offered less selection, charged higher prices, had less leverage with suppliers, and were basically in every way competitively inferior--would seriously have employed more people for higher wages than the Wal-Marts that "replaced" them?

 

It would be in keep with you're assertion that they are less economically efficient, would it not?

 

No, it really wouldn't.  Economic inefficiency is almost never a good thing.  Those other stores might have employed fewer people for more wages, or the same number of people for lower wages, or fewer people at lower wages, but they would never have employed more people for higher wages.  And, as I said, they were charging higher prices for the exact same products.  A bottle of shampoo is the same whether you're spending $4 for it at Wal-Mart or $6 for it at Bob's General Store.

 

This nostalgia for "mom and pop" stores of yesteryear is absolutely mindboggling to me.  I'm wondering what it is about these stores that people miss so much--the lower selection or the higher prices.  We had two of them in the tiny rural town where I grew up, and they may still be there because we didn't have a Wal-Mart come in close enough to make it really convenient to get to either of them--Heath and Pickerington were the closest, and the Pickerington one didn't come in until years after we moved to the boonies.  Those local stores were basically just dingier versions of convenience stores you'd find at gas stations, with maybe a couple of extra items.  Not many.

 

I have not contradicted myself.  Wal-Mart is a triumph of the free market and should be welcomed and celebrated.  It has increased, not decreased, the standards of living of millions who would otherwise be stuck paying more and getting less at smaller, less efficient retailers.  To the extent it has put any stores out of business, well, that's business.  It's no more unfortunate than the demise of Circuit City.  In addition, Wal-Marts have often <a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/blairsvilledispatch/s_185164.html">increased business for nearby businesses</a> by drawing more people into the area.  See also <a href="http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2006/06/small-business-surviving-wal-mart.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/business/smallbusiness/01retail.html?_r=1">here</a> (from the NYT, no less).  At the very least, their impact is <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1TOL/is_10/ai_n25121956/">mixed</a>, and doesn't deserve the ire it receives on these boards or in other groupthink-heavy Internet forums.

 

All that mom and pop stores ever offered was the chance to pay an extra middleman.

 

You're from a tiny rural town.  that in itself is why you don't get it.

 

- First and foremost, Mom & Pop (M&P's) stores are an integral part of a community.  Not only do they provide a service, but since the most likely live above their store or within walking distance of their establishment, they are doubly invested in the community.

 

- M&P's know their customers by name.

 

- M&P's generally provide a service that larger stores cannot.

 

I'd like to know why you think M&P stores have a lower selection and a higher price??  If anything they were in touch with their customer base and stocked exactly what their customer need.  If a customer need something not in stock, they would special order it.

 

If your basing your assumptions on what you experienced in your tiny rural town, then I would make assumption.

 

I wonder when Walmart is going to close on Highland in PRidge/Columbia Twp and move to the one on Red Bank.

 

I have only been in Walmart twice in my life. I have never bought anything there that i can recall.  The stores i've been in have been so disorganized and filthy as well as some ethical issues with the treatment of suppliers and price cutting that i will never go there again.

"Wal-Mart is a triumph of the free market and should be welcomed and celebrated."

 

Seriously, guy?  A "triumph"?  I guess if you're counting the mistreatment of employees in a wide variety of ways as being a "triumph," then yeah, I'd agree.  :roll:

You're right ... I do feel the need to fight your analysis. I try to stop ... must ... keep ... going. No, must really stop. I agree that we tend to aggrandize mom and pop, but by the same token, I think you are undercutting their potential economic value in the community:

 

1. Owned primarily by individuals living and working directly in the community. More likely to be moved by social factors than a large remote corporation, unless the large remote corporation can show an immediate or near-immediate benefit to shareholders for addressing said social factor. An assumption on my part, but I believe Walmart is more likely to build on a greenfield than a mom and pop, less likely to renovate a building to its historic condition, more likely to leave a community when its economic returns drop suddenly, more likely to leave a community for another community offering tax incentives, etc. While such firms are quite savvy in heeding local trends, I would still argue that companies run by locals are more likely to be locally responsive ... except when the PR of being locally responsive raises Walmart's bottom line.

 

2. Mom and pops tend to be, by definition, small operations. This encourages decentralization of goods and services and an increase in direct competition. The barriers to entry for competing against a mom and pop convenience store are considerably less than trying to compete head-on-head with Walmart. Accepting the economic dominance of Walmart when it comes to both price and diversity of product, competition is stifled and activity is centralized ... again, largely in greenfields removed from the city and leading to considerable disinvestment in existing retail infrastructure in cities and inner suburbs.

 

3. Decentralized mom and pop shops give consumers greater recourse to subpar treatment. Given a number of small retailers offering similar and overlapping product lines, a consumer can more easily vote with their pocketbooks. Because the hierarchy of command is so significantly simpler, a consumer can also communicate much more easily with employees and owners with authority to act than in a Walmart hierarchy.

 

Not suggesting that there aren't clear economic benefits that Walmart provides, but I just can't buy an argument that Walmart is economically superior to communities in every sense.

You're from a tiny rural town.  that in itself is why you don't get it.

 

Not the first time I've faced that sentiment.

 

I've also lived in Columbus, Canton, and (soon) Akron.  I'm not a country bumpkin anymore, if indeed I ever was.

 

- First and foremost, Mom & Pop (M&P's) stores are an integral part of a community.  Not only do they provide a service, but since the most likely live above their store or within walking distance of their establishment, they are doubly invested in the community.

 

This "benefit" is entirely subjective, and as that NYT article I linked shows, the image of Wal-Mart as completely unconnected to its communities is not exactly warranted.  Moreover, as several of my other links showed, businesses often congregate around a Wal-Mart like smaller ships in a flotilla around an aircraft carrier, rather than fleeing it.

 

- M&P's know their customers by name.

 

Again, this benefit is entirely subjective.

 

- M&P's generally provide a service that larger stores cannot.

 

If they can provide a service that's actually valuable (as opposed to subjectively valuable by people who don't actually vote with their dollars), why should they fear Wal-Mart at all?  Those sound like exactly the kind of businesses that have profited from having Wal-Marts move in nearby, as it brings customers into the area who then may patronize the store that provides something that Wal-Mart cannot provide.  It was the ones who couldn't provide a product or service that Wal-Mart couldn't provide better that Wal-Mart displaced.  Note the story, linked above, about the local clock repairman who's seen business pick up since a Wal-Mart moved in nearby.  Wal-Mart obviously isn't going to be fixing your clock.

 

I'd like to know why you think M&P stores have a lower selection and a higher price??  If anything they were in touch with their customer base and stocked exactly what their customer need.  If a customer need something not in stock, they would special order it.

 

I "think" they have lower selection and higher prices because they do, or at least, the ones displaced by Wal-Mart did.  Do you really think Wal-Mart's lower prices are illusory?  Some can compete with them on price, but outlets like Save-a-Lot and Aldi aren't any more likely to special order a product for someone than Wal-Mart is.

 

Also, I return to my earlier point: if a store offered a special-ordering service that was actually valuable enough for people to use, Wal-Mart wouldn't drive them out of business because people who needed that service couldn't go to Wal-Mart.  Where Wal-Mart excels is by moving massive amounts of everyday products--toiletries, packaged foods, etc.  You're right that they can't offer highly customized or specialized service.  That's because they're not trying to fill every niche for everyone.  They're a discount retailer and seem generally inclined to remain so.

 

I agree that we tend to aggrandize mom and pop, but by the same token, I think you are undercutting their potential economic value in the community:

 

1. Owned primarily by individuals living and working directly in the community. More likely to be moved by social factors than a large remote corporation, unless the large remote corporation can show an immediate or near-immediate benefit to shareholders for addressing said social factor.

 

See my response to MTS above.

 

An assumption on my part, but I believe Walmart is more likely to build on a greenfield than a mom and pop, less likely to renovate a building to its historic condition, more likely to leave a community when its economic returns drop suddenly, more likely to leave a community for another community offering tax incentives, etc. While such firms are quite savvy in heeding local trends, I would still argue that companies run by locals are more likely to be locally responsive ... except when the PR of being locally responsive raises Walmart's bottom line.

 

Historically, you are correct about the greenfield point.  Keep in mind that Wal-Mart actually moved from the country to the city, not the reverse.  They appeared in small towns before they moved to the suburbs.  More recently, however, they've started to look at urban plots.  Their Canton Centre Mall Supercenter location, for example, was not a greenfield, AFAIK.  Their business model has depended on being able to get large amounts of land cheap.  When urban real estate was expensive, it was cost-prohibitive to locate in cities.  (Also, even I wouldn't want a Wal-Mart in the heart of an urban area ... the parking requirements are utter anathema to a walkable community.)  That's started to change, and many new Wal-Marts are sited in urban shopping areas where large shopping centers have been basically withering--in other words, where they can now get cheap land that was expensive 20-30 years ago.  It wasn't Wal-Mart that was responsible for the decline of such districts, though.  Other cultural forces and public policies bear the blame for that.

 

However, I think you're wrong about the others.  Wal-Mart is among the last companies to leave an area when economic returns drop; I already posted that in one of my numerous links on this thread.  They actually do better in recessions; their core customer base remains and they pick up customers who were previously Giant Eagle or Best Buy shoppers.

 

2. Mom and pops tend to be, by definition, small operations. This encourages decentralization of goods and services and an increase in direct competition. The barriers to entry for competing against a mom and pop convenience store are considerably less than trying to compete head-on-head with Walmart. Accepting the economic dominance of Walmart when it comes to both price and diversity of product, competition is stifled and activity is centralized ... again, largely in greenfields removed from the city and leading to considerable disinvestment in existing retail infrastructure in cities and inner suburbs.

 

Wal-Mart actually tends to come into the cities and reinvest in older shopping districts, since that's where they can get enough land at a low enough price to make it cost-effective to put a store there.  As for the benefits of centralization vs. decentralization: I agree that decentralization has many benefits, but as big as Wal-Mart is, they hardly have a monopoly on any product.  The Internet has opened up an entirely new world of retail competition, allowing local businesses to effectively go national for the price of an e-commerce Web site.  Even in just the world of brick and mortar, I can get almost any product that Wal-Mart sells here (or a competitive substitute) at some other vendor if I wish.

 

3. Decentralized mom and pop shops give consumers greater recourse to subpar treatment.

 

I think my response to this would basically be the same as to the previous point.  People still do have the option of going elsewhere.  In large numbers, however, they've voted for Wal-Mart with their feet--unless do-gooder activists succeed in using the force of the state to bar Wal-Mart from a community by force.

 

Not suggesting that there aren't clear economic benefits that Walmart provides, but I just can't buy an argument that Walmart is economically superior to communities in every sense.

 

Well, this is more than some on these boards have conceded.

Walmart can drive any small competitor out of business because Walmart has the advantage of scale, a problem that basic capitalism theory ignores.  Walmart didn't provide anything "better" except pricing.  And yes, Walmart's low prices are illusory.  The margin people think they're gaining is actually disappearing from their own income.  Where does it end up?  Part of it goes to the Walton family et al, while the rest goes to the treasury of the PRC.

gramarye, you don't get "it" and you wont.  I'm done, because this is like talking to a brick wall.

Walmart can drive any small competitor out of business because Walmart has the advantage of scale, a problem that basic capitalism theory ignores. Walmart didn't provide anything "better" except pricing. And yes, Walmart's low prices are illusory. The margin people think they're gaining is actually disappearing from their own income. Where does it end up? Part of it goes to the Walton family et al, while the rest goes to the treasury of the PRC.

 

Basic economic theory does not ignore scale.

 

I have never, ever seen a convincing argument (including, yes, The High Cost of Low Prices) that Wal-Mart is giving people discounts with one hand and lowering their wages with the other.  How exactly is a plumber, construction worker, schoolteacher, etc. suffering from a decrease in pay due to Wal-Mart's influence on either any specific local community or the country?

Exactly which economic theory are we talking about?  Pure capitalism?  It most certainly does ignore scale, by assuming that no individual player can affect the market as a whole.  If we're talking about a regulated mixed economy, then no it typically does not ignore scale.  But you're asking our economy to ignore Walmart's scale and the detrimental effects thereof.  I'm not sure we can keep doing that.

Well, then, we're just going to have to disagree on that.  I realize that there can't be a Wal-Mart on every street corner, but I know I'm saving money shopping there, the lack of personalized service doesn't really affect me when I already know what I want, and I simply don't see any of these "detrimental effects" as being anything more than natural parts of a dynamic economy.  Capitalism works by creative destruction.  The old is always being swept away by the new; it's when we interfere with that process that we screw things up.

The ocean also works by creative destruction.  That doesn't mean we're all going to wander out into the riptide.  However, you can if you want to.

LOL.  And supernovae are also acts of creative destruction as well, but I'm not planning on flying through one anytime soon.

 

I don't think the parallel quite holds.  :-P

Wal-Mart is among the last companies to leave an area when economic returns drop; I already posted that in one of my numerous links on this thread. They actually do better in recessions; their core customer base remains and they pick up customers who were previously Giant Eagle or Best Buy shoppers.

 

I won't counter the counter-cyclical argument. But I wasn't referring to their behavior in system-wide downturns but rather how they behave when a move incrementally impacts their bottom line ... either when a store is underperforming or when another nearby municipality incentivizes the move or when they are converting from a standard store to a super-store. This thread started out noting that nearly 300 Walmart stores are vacant, suggesting that they aren't 100% dedicated to remaining in their initial site. As a business, they have every right to react to their bottom line. But it is my contention that a) mom and pops will respond to a wide range of factors, including bottom line, while a big box is likely only motivated by short-term increases to shareholders and that b) because mom and pops are, almost by definition, small, it is easier for the market to absorb this space than to fill a hulking greenfield plot with a new tenant. And there are clear implications for taxpayers when a greenfield development is left shuttered, since they often require substantial subsidy through tax incentive and infrastructure construction in exchange for the promise of a ROI to taxpayers through sales tax and income tax receipts. In the absence of some promise of return to the hosting community, I wonder the wisdom of making this public investment.

 

Wal-Mart actually tends to come into the cities and reinvest in older shopping districts, since that's where they can get enough land at a low enough price to make it cost-effective to put a store there.

 

They may tend to develop in underperforming commercial strips and vacant big box parcels. But by and large, this is not where the moms and pops were that they displaced. I'm referring to the traditional urban shopping corridors that end up vacant, in exchange for sites that are largely on the outskirts of a city, if within city limits at all, and more probably, are in an exurban location. Like you, I don't prefer to see Walmart in the middle of a dense, urban neighborhood, but I also don't prefer to see the business corridors within the city to remain vacant or to increase the transportation burden for city residents to access retail.

 

I think it's time for a little comic relief: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

^ "Wal-Mart actually tends to come into the cities and reinvest in older shopping districts, since that's where they can get enough land at a low enough price to make it cost-effective to put a store there. "

 

That is laughable! They 'tend' to sprawl.... The typical menu.. Wal-Mart as the main dish, flanked by Lowe's as the side...then Applebee's for desert. I wish they made a habit of re-investing in existing lands/older retail areas, brownfields (like Steel yards) but this is not the general rule of what they do.

I think it's time for a little comic relief: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

 

I was JUST looking at that website yesterday.  HILARIOUS.  If you haven't, you should check out their Facebook page.  It's got a lot more photos.

^ "Wal-Mart actually tends to come into the cities and reinvest in older shopping districts, since that's where they can get enough land at a low enough price to make it cost-effective to put a store there. "

 

That is laughable! They 'tend' to sprawl.... The typical menu.. Wal-Mart as the main dish, flanked by Lowe's as the side...then Applebee's for desert. I wish they made a habit of re-investing in existing lands/older retail areas, brownfields (like Steel yards) but this is not the general rule of what they do.

 

Steelyards, hmm ...

 

sort of like <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1098936,00.html">demolishing an old factory on Chicago's densely-populated West Side</a> to put in a store in an underserved urban area?

 

Not a steelyard, I admit, but definitely an old industrial site.  I already admitted that historically, this hasn't been their primary modus operandi.  However, as their opportunities on that model get played out, they're going to look for new markets; for example, they're making <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123429120871869301.html">another urban push in Chicago</a>.  Businesses change and adapt (or at least successful ones do, and Wal-Mart qualifies).  The new focus on getting into the cities has been <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_285531.htm">noted as a change</a> in the way they do business.  Yes, they're still looking to make money, but that Business Week article from 2006 notes that they now have opportunities to do that in urban areas, and that those areas are *already* not served by much retail, so the whole notion that they're going to be destroying more jobs than they create is even further eroded:

 

Of all the steps Wal-Mart has taken, however, image experts say opening stores in poorer neighborhoods could be the most fruitful. That's because most major retailers have continued to ignore those markets, says Chris Ohlinger, chief executive of SIRS Inc., a research firm that tracks consumer attitudes towards retailers. "It's the only part of the United States that needs more retail. It's a great move."

 

Adam Hanft, chief executive of Hanft Unlimited, a New York brand consulting firm, agrees. Opening urban stores is far more tangible to shoppers than health insurance or the environment, making the move much like Wal-Mart's Hurricane Katrina relief efforts for which it was broadly praised, he says. And, Hanft adds, it addresses squarely one of the central criticisms of Wal-Mart: "That it sucks the life out of communities."

 

Because of the lack of competition, analysts say, the inner-city stores could prove just as profitable as Wal-Mart's other stores, in addition to building goodwill and being easier to locate. Scott acknowledged as much in the telephone interview. "We are not looking for diminished returns," he said.

They have made some positive policy changes in recent years, and they deserve to receive some goodwill for it.  Still, the goodwill deficit remains, and it's hard to escape the notion that unrelenting public pressure was a big motivator in Walmart's sudden (how long have they been around?) sense of urban social consciousness.  This indicates to me that the pressure needs to continue.  We might yet make responsible citizens out of Walmart. 

^ "Wal-Mart actually tends to come into the cities and reinvest in older shopping districts, since that's where they can get enough land at a low enough price to make it cost-effective to put a store there. "

 

That is laughable! They 'tend' to sprawl.... The typical menu.. Wal-Mart as the main dish, flanked by Lowe's as the side...then Applebee's for desert. I wish they made a habit of re-investing in existing lands/older retail areas, brownfields (like Steel yards) but this is not the general rule of what they do.

 

Steelyards, hmm ...

 

sort of like <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1098936,00.html">demolishing an old factory on Chicago's densely-populated West Side</a> to put in a store in an underserved urban area?

 

Not a steelyard, I admit, but definitely an old industrial site. I already admitted that historically, this hasn't been their primary modus operandi. However, as their opportunities on that model get played out, they're going to look for new markets; for example, they're making <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123429120871869301.html">another urban push in Chicago</a>. Businesses change and adapt (or at least successful ones do, and Wal-Mart qualifies). The new focus on getting into the cities has been <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/apr2006/pi20060404_285531.htm">noted as a change</a> in the way they do business. Yes, they're still looking to make money, but that Business Week article from 2006 notes that they now have opportunities to do that in urban areas, and that those areas are *already* not served by much retail, so the whole notion that they're going to be destroying more jobs than they create is even further eroded:

 

Of all the steps Wal-Mart has taken, however, image experts say opening stores in poorer neighborhoods could be the most fruitful. That's because most major retailers have continued to ignore those markets, says Chris Ohlinger, chief executive of SIRS Inc., a research firm that tracks consumer attitudes towards retailers. "It's the only part of the United States that needs more retail. It's a great move."

 

Adam Hanft, chief executive of Hanft Unlimited, a New York brand consulting firm, agrees. Opening urban stores is far more tangible to shoppers than health insurance or the environment, making the move much like Wal-Mart's Hurricane Katrina relief efforts for which it was broadly praised, he says. And, Hanft adds, it addresses squarely one of the central criticisms of Wal-Mart: "That it sucks the life out of communities."

 

Because of the lack of competition, analysts say, the inner-city stores could prove just as profitable as Wal-Mart's other stores, in addition to building goodwill and being easier to locate. Scott acknowledged as much in the telephone interview. "We are not looking for diminished returns," he said.

 

Just because Walmart is trying to push into New York, LA, and Chicago again is irrelevent. Although some Walmarts do end up on redeveloped sites, the vast majority are built in greenfields. What is worse is the reality that Walmart has left 300 stores vacant nationwide to construct larger stores; I cannot imagine that they have done that many redevelopment projects. And if they have, I would imagine that a good number are part of larger developments not initiated by Walmart itself.

 

Suggesting that they tend to locate in older areas is pure insanity.

It was founded in 1962, but it didn't start growing like wildfire until a bit later.  (It was first listed on the NYSE in 1972, for example.)  Actually, as Fortune 500 companies go, it's fairly young.  ExxonMobil, Chevron, GE, GM, P&G, etc. ... all way older (well, OK, the component parts of ExxonMobil were way older).

The clothing you buy there is made in horrid conditions in third-world countries. Sure, they have a job thanks to Walmart, but I choose not to be personally responsible for that. Here's a Dateline video on a Bangladeshi worker who makes sweatpants for Walmart, visits a one and when they ask a shopper what she thinks about paying a little more for that pair of sweatpants, well, it's sad.

 

I think you can shop at Wal-Mart without feeling personally responsible for anything Wal-Mart does.

 

By your logic if a business donates money to Al-Qaeda and maybe even knowing that you shop there, you say you have no personal responsibility. Sure you do, but it doesn't mean you have to "feel" it, especially if you choose to be ignorant about it.

You are correct: If a business donates money to Al Qaeda, or to Dennis Kucinich, or to the Temperance Party, or to PETA, or to the American Society of Baby Seal Clubbers, its customers are still not personally responsible for the corporation's actions.

But what if I put "For Clubbing Baby Seals" in the memo line on the check?

I was in our new Super Wal-Mart today, and noticed they've pretty much copied Meijers food sales concept, right down to how they lay out the aisles, produce, and bakery dept.  BTW, Meijer, here in Dayton, is union, as is Cub Foods and Kroger, Wal-Marts competetitor.

 

Recycling big boxes is the new commericial real-estate/adaptive re-use design problem.

 

 

But what if I put "For Clubbing Baby Seals" in the memo line on the check?

 

A skeleton walked into a bar, asked for a beer and a mop.

 

A baby seal walked into a club.....

This is not adding much to the debate or topic, but I have never been in a Wal Mart in my entire life which many people find remarkable.  I have been in a Sams Club a couple of times, or as I like to call it "Unattractive People World".

Hah.  Well, I still think it's in bad taste, but that People of Wal-Mart site just got a news story on the main page of Yahoo.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090901/us_time/08599191940100

This is not adding much to the debate or topic, but I have never been in a Wal Mart in my entire life which many people find remarkable.  I have been in a Sams Club a couple of times, or as I like to call it "Unattractive People World".

 

Relevant as SC's are owned by walmart.