For anyone reading this thread who still has an open mind, I recommend this 2009 episode of the EconTalk podcast that talks about actually working at Walmart and how supposedly-great the "mom and pops" were before Walmart took over:
The truth about the mom and pops is that they had very limited selection, high prices, long delivery times, and often were owned by the local business man rather than a decentralized group of independent business owners. I recommend listening to the podcast before knee-jerk deciding that you know everything.
That's just a set of anecdotes though. Maybe mom and pop stores came in all kinds of varieties, some were better and some were worse. Maybe we shouldn't automatically praise them but maybe we shouldn't also automatically assume that because some of them weren't good most of them weren't good. I doubt anyone has the data to advance a definitive view of mom and pop vs walmart.
What I do think we can say definitively is that any market that has few competitors over time will atrophy. Having the store landscape reduced to a few big chains with little variety is not healthy for that market.
> often were owned by the local business man rather than a decentralized group of independent business owners
You imply this is undesirable. Care to elaborate? A large talking point during the protests last year was businesses in Black communities being owned by people outside those communities, or more often than not, by large corporations.
Or are you suggesting that a lot of the owners actually owned multiple such shops and that this isn't true for the shops that replaced them?
If the idea is that every mom and pop was ran by self-directed, profit-motivated independent business persons who captured more of the profit, this is not often the case - the employees of these stores made the same going labor rate of any retail employee, it was just a local business man who ran the businesses rather than a conglomerate. One benefit of a large corporation like Walmart is the share holders are far more distributed.
My general point is that this fantasy of a "mom and pop utopia" of small businesses that Walmart and similar destroyed is just that - a total fantasy. They were not a dream situation and they went away because they were not the best for consumers or their community, not because of some grand conspiracy.
This is assuming "mom and pop stores" are beneficial. We certainly like them when driving through picturesque small towns but I know a lot of people living in those towns that prefer an efficient supplier. They understand what they lose but prefer to save money on their shopping trips.
Walmart not only sells merchandise cheaper than "Mom and Pop", they almost certainly pay their employees higher wages than Mom and Pop ever did. They also have a 401(k) (fully-vested after only 7 years) and an education program that covers tuition, books, and fees for majors of interest to Walmart (e.g., IT and supply-chain management).
The opportunities for advancement at "Mom and Pop" were pretty much limited to "Son or Daughter". By contrast, the current CEO of Walmart (annual compensation $22 million, net worth > $100 million) started working there as a summer job in high school, unloading trucks, and has never worked anywhere else.
No, not usually. Usually they are replacing a less profitable, but larger grocery store with a highly profitable, smaller dollar store. It's a greater profit at the cost of product selection.
In much of the midwest wallmart in 90s went to the biggest cities every 40-60 miles then that led to all local non chain spartan grocery stores going under. Driving back to my parents over past few years have seen all the small towns that used to have a grocery store now have a DG to take care of at least some needs and having to drive an hour for some laundry soap. DG has spent a lot of time figuring out the 60% of what you need with almost all goods same price as walmart
That is an incredibly privileged response to something like this. No one who is living in poverty or near the edge of poverty can even consider the additional cost associated with shipping or delivery, let alone on a weekly basis for core staples.
Reasonably priced fresh food access within walking distance should be a basic right. However, the people who need this most are those who are underserved.
But that’s my point. The case for retail increasingly only makes sense if a few extra dollars here and there matter to you and you need the savings it can provide.
So it makes sense that any increase in retail would be meant to serve that population.
I guess the point left to further discussion would be whether or not these stores truly server that population.
They clearly found a gap and a solid business model (for now) but is it a success from capitalism is concerned? or humanitarianism is concerned? I'd say the former and maybe a bandaid for the latter in some regions.
Walmart already came through and blew away the local mom and pop market in these rural areas.
Are they more convenient than driving an hour to a walmart? probably.
I've seen small family run stores go out of business specifically because they can't compete with a dollar general that opened a mile away.
"Deeply beneficial" seems like a strong phrase for something you might want to reflect on more.
Ask some of your older family members what they did before Walmart