the lemur
Senior Member
That leaves quite a few things that probably aren't available at Wal-Mart and most likely never will be, because Wal-Mart is unable to stock it at the price it wants.
|
|
|
diminutive
Active Member
This thread is ridiculous. Walmart is the only retailer which gets subjected to this kind of armchair social-planning about whether or not it 'deserves' to be in the community and what not. Why is there no 'Does Marshall's belong downtown' thread? I went there once and it smelt kind of funny, by this thread's logic that's almost enough to have it banned from civilization. Like, discussions of whether or not Walmart's bikes are good or if it has a good produce section are insane; these are the kinds of questions that consumers are very able to answer on their own.
Which is not to say I'm advocating a kind of Ayn Rand, sea-stedding policy of total deregulation. Obviously we have and ought to have a number of regulations which could be relevant. The issue here is that NOBODY is giving an example of a single regulation Walmart is violating. Nobody is even proposing new regulations which would end perceived flaws with Walmart. Raise minimum wage? Make it easier to form retail unions? Adopt protectionist policies to shore up certain businesses?
Regulated markets are completely normal, but regulations have to be broad and non-prejudicial and ends oriented. You can't just pick out one particular retailer for broad and unspecified criticisms, it just makes you look hypocritical and inconsistent. Like, sure, Walmart has done everything it can to make sure unions don't form in its outlets. So has Whole Foods, Starbucks, Target and pretty much every small to medium retailer in the City. Honestly, are there *any* retail units even in Kensington Market?
Some of the criticisms here have been absolutely ridiculous both in detail and principle. Walmart not having free run eggs or organic milk are both wrong (they do, for very good prices) and irrelevant.
I say live and let live, let a thousand flowers bloom.
Which is not to say I'm advocating a kind of Ayn Rand, sea-stedding policy of total deregulation. Obviously we have and ought to have a number of regulations which could be relevant. The issue here is that NOBODY is giving an example of a single regulation Walmart is violating. Nobody is even proposing new regulations which would end perceived flaws with Walmart. Raise minimum wage? Make it easier to form retail unions? Adopt protectionist policies to shore up certain businesses?
Regulated markets are completely normal, but regulations have to be broad and non-prejudicial and ends oriented. You can't just pick out one particular retailer for broad and unspecified criticisms, it just makes you look hypocritical and inconsistent. Like, sure, Walmart has done everything it can to make sure unions don't form in its outlets. So has Whole Foods, Starbucks, Target and pretty much every small to medium retailer in the City. Honestly, are there *any* retail units even in Kensington Market?
Some of the criticisms here have been absolutely ridiculous both in detail and principle. Walmart not having free run eggs or organic milk are both wrong (they do, for very good prices) and irrelevant.
I say live and let live, let a thousand flowers bloom.
RC8
Senior Member
Spider,
I'm actually really happy that Yogactive cereal is becoming more mainstream! I knew Walmart QC carried them, good to see now they are available at more places in ON.
Other than that, yeah... I know the quality of produce available at Walmart and I'm not interested in it. Ditto for the pumpernickel.
I bet you could find 'aged cheddar' too, but it would be awful in comparison to the really cheap and awesome one I buy at St. Lawrence.
In any case, Walmart could fail to stock every product I use and I wouldn't mind it. The real problem here is that their business model consists on using price leaders to bankrupt competing businesses while extracting money from the local economy at a massive scale - all the while using advertisement and economies of scale to convince people to settle for worse quality than market standards.
I'm actually really happy that Yogactive cereal is becoming more mainstream! I knew Walmart QC carried them, good to see now they are available at more places in ON.
Other than that, yeah... I know the quality of produce available at Walmart and I'm not interested in it. Ditto for the pumpernickel.
I bet you could find 'aged cheddar' too, but it would be awful in comparison to the really cheap and awesome one I buy at St. Lawrence.
In any case, Walmart could fail to stock every product I use and I wouldn't mind it. The real problem here is that their business model consists on using price leaders to bankrupt competing businesses while extracting money from the local economy at a massive scale - all the while using advertisement and economies of scale to convince people to settle for worse quality than market standards.
diminutive
Active Member
What does this even mean? 'Extracting money from the local economy' is beyond vague. It's hard to really address this as a criticism since it is basically incoherent. Every business transaction involves one party extracting money from the purchaser. That's sort of the point.
I think you're trying to allege that Walmart engages in anti-competitive behaviour through loss leader like pricing. To begin with, loss leader pricing isn't strictly illegal nor is it uncommon. The entire grocery industry relies on it, selling (usually) shelf goods at a loss in the hopes customers will purchase high margin produce.
Second, the implicit 'threat' here is that once Walmart drives out all of its competitors through predatory pricing, it will use its monopoly position to earn economic rents. This goes against everything (even critics) have observed about Walmart, which is that it almost always pursues extremely aggressive pricing strategies. Notwithstanding Walmart's massive scale, the retail industry is not easy to monopolize given how low barriers to entry are.
And, again, regarding your comment that Walmart dupes consumers into worse quality goods, this is both wrong and irrelevant. Wrong in that Walmart sells essentially the same products as its competitor (if you buy a Coleman cooler it will be the same in Walmart as in a random hardware store). But more importantly irrelevant in that consumers are fully able to decide for themselves what kind of quality they want. It's like people who argue that Ikea furniture is 'low quality' by comparison to luxury furniture.
RC8
Senior Member
This store wouldn't exist in a vacuum, you have to see what is there right now and weigh the pros and cons of building this type of operation there. As things stand a very large amount of the money that is spent in Kensington Market, The Annex, etc. stays within the local economy. Just as importantly, businesses play on a fairly similar playing field, which means that pricing is for the most part very competitive, and the quality of products on offer determines the success or failure of any given establishment.
These businesses are themselves culturally relevant to the local population, and are more dynamic than any single large chain could dream of being. The degree of social mobility conferred by the current configuration of businesses is actually really high - as people can conquer one position and move to a higher one either in the same store or a variety of nearby stores. This employment flexibility usually means that businesses that treat their employees poorly can and do fail.
Walmart's business model is based on providing as little employment as possible, and paying each employee as little as possible. In other words, it's about obtaining the highest possible amount of money from a particular location and returning as little as possible. Even I probably buy some awful products on a regular basis when it comes to areas where my expertise is limited.
I believe the current configuration is more conducive to the long term social and economic well-being of the area.
It is so terribly naive to think that in a free market situation the little guy can come out on top simply by providing the better product. Large multinationals use every psychological trick conceivable to make sure that the actual quality and value of a product have as little influence on consumer choice as possible.
These businesses are themselves culturally relevant to the local population, and are more dynamic than any single large chain could dream of being. The degree of social mobility conferred by the current configuration of businesses is actually really high - as people can conquer one position and move to a higher one either in the same store or a variety of nearby stores. This employment flexibility usually means that businesses that treat their employees poorly can and do fail.
Walmart's business model is based on providing as little employment as possible, and paying each employee as little as possible. In other words, it's about obtaining the highest possible amount of money from a particular location and returning as little as possible. Even I probably buy some awful products on a regular basis when it comes to areas where my expertise is limited.
I believe the current configuration is more conducive to the long term social and economic well-being of the area.
It is so terribly naive to think that in a free market situation the little guy can come out on top simply by providing the better product. Large multinationals use every psychological trick conceivable to make sure that the actual quality and value of a product have as little influence on consumer choice as possible.
Last edited:
pignchick
New Member
If I am buying Neilson milk, Old Dutch Ketchup chips, or Herbal Essence shampoo, why should I pay more at the corner variety store. If these little shops want to add value then they need to start selling a more customized better quality product that Wal-Mart does not stock because the masses cannot afford to buy it regularly, or Wal-Mart does not want to operate in that segment.
BTW Wal-Marts efficiency should make the Canadian economy more productive, reduce inflation, and help these small shops find better use of their resources.
nrb
Active Member
Corner stores sell these items for your convienence.. you pay for the convienence of having it right at your corner. It's a very straightforward business model.
You're last line is very funny.
ttk77
Senior Member
This completely ignores one important factor. The owners of those local stores who live in the same communities spend the profits from their business much closer to home. The Walmarts and other major retailers of the world take those profits and pay them out as interest and dividends to their investors around the world. This is how the Walmarts of the world extract money from the local economy. Biologically speaking, Walmart's relationship with the community is parasitic, while small business's relationship with the community is more symbiotic.
This is true. Most stores sell the exact same items, and the cheapening of these goods that's happened over the years is our own fault, not Walmart's. They're taking advantage of what was until recently a mostly North American phenomenon of wanting more and more for less and less, and the only way to give that to people is to spend less on the manufacturing of the goods. That means off-shoring manufacturing, using cheaper materials and cheaper manufacturing processes. Walmart was very successful at taking advantage of this. Other stores had no choice but to follow suit either just to be able to stay in business, or simply because the products they used to sell were cheapened so that the manufacturers of those goods could afford to sell them through Walmart.
People that reject Walmart are rejecting the consumerist notion that it's always better to be able to get more for less.
spider
Senior Member
So, the better people among us should strive to pay as much as possible for everything we buy?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Well, the Walmart model of retail leave much to be desired, but I am not sure if using planning tools is the best way to reign those undesirable qualities in (that's not to say the Kensington proposal is acceptable - but it wouldn't have been regardless of the brand of retailer). Planning tools are context dependent, limited in reach and definitely NOT designed to distinguish retailer on the basis of brand.
I think people should be aware of the true cost of everything we buy. By true cost, I don't just mean valuation by our current economic system.
AoD
I think people should be aware of the true cost of everything we buy. By true cost, I don't just mean valuation by our current economic system.
AoD
ttk77
Senior Member
That's a bit of a jump don't you think? First, using the word "better" is being purposely provocative and casting an elitist label on people who simply believe that Walmart's business model is unsustainable. Second, the last part of your statement is utterly ridiculous. In the view of those who reject the more-for-less is always better business model, people should be striving to pay a fair price that covers the costs and provides for a reasonable amount of profit for quality and sustainably produced goods and services. Reasonable profit meaning enough to provide opportunity for business expansion and to ensure that the business owners are fairly compensated for their hard work.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
ttk:
The funny thing is IMO the Walmart model of retail legitimizes the erosion of the middle class - by offering an avenue of maintaining the level of material comfort at a lower price (with externalized costs) in the face of declining real income.
Not to say that it's an entirely bad thing, given the efficiency of the model (particularly in area such as logistics) can offer a great lessons in how to provide needed material goods to the masses - one just have to ask some tough questions about who benefits, what is the responsibility of the corporation and the state.
AoD
The funny thing is IMO the Walmart model of retail legitimizes the erosion of the middle class - by offering an avenue of maintaining the level of material comfort at a lower price (with externalized costs) in the face of declining real income.
Not to say that it's an entirely bad thing, given the efficiency of the model (particularly in area such as logistics) can offer a great lessons in how to provide needed material goods to the masses - one just have to ask some tough questions about who benefits, what is the responsibility of the corporation and the state.
AoD
Last edited:
ttk77
Senior Member
^ This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to express when I used the word unsustainable. In our desire to constantly lower the prices on everything, we're shipping our jobs overseas and eroding the wages on the ones that remain.
spider
Senior Member
I am pretty sure that there is not a single person on this thread sufficiently informed to know the "true cost" of everything they will buy today.
That information is available at the cash register, it is arrived at by the retailer who knows his or her cost and decides the level of mark up needed to keep the doors open and provide a living for him and his family. Given that there is more than one independent retailer there will likely be more than one mark up evaluation and subsequently retail price.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
ttk:
Wanting to lower costs in itself isn't a bad thing - it can drive innovation. Where it becomes a potential issue is when costs are lowered not because of advances in manufacturing or technology - but through shifting of production to jurisdictions with lower costs and in particular lower standards - in effect potentially exporting the problems associated with our consumption to places willing to accept it. That can of course be beneficial sometimes (as a route to economic development) but often it isn't.
AoD
Wanting to lower costs in itself isn't a bad thing - it can drive innovation. Where it becomes a potential issue is when costs are lowered not because of advances in manufacturing or technology - but through shifting of production to jurisdictions with lower costs and in particular lower standards - in effect potentially exporting the problems associated with our consumption to places willing to accept it. That can of course be beneficial sometimes (as a route to economic development) but often it isn't.
AoD