|
Bill wrote: Harry, Wal-Mart is cheap and I do shop there. Something about
the end of small stores and the fact that Wal-Mart and others use basically a
temporary work force that will have to live totally off of SS at the end it
would appear. There
are other points to consider. As
the Institute for Self-Reliance (www.islr.org) and The Hometown Advantage
(Stacy Mitchell) document, communities dominated by corporate chains are worse
off economically than are diverse economies maintaining small-scale, locally
owned enterprises. Here is Mitchell’s
list of why, paraphrased by yours truly: 1. Jobs
and taxes. A new Home Depot will not sell anymore hammers and nails than 3
local hardware stores – it’s supply and demand. But because the Home Depot will
eventually force the local stores to decline, all the revenue exchange goes out
of town rather than staying local.
For every 1 job that a Wal-Mart provides it takes away 3 previous jobs. 2.
Public costs. Land use patterns accommodating big corporate retail contribute
not just to sprawl but the costs of additional roads, sewers and fire and
police protection. This adds to the costs local taxpayers are already paying
without adding to the revenue base when corporations have received lucrative
tax incentives. The community
bears the brunt of the investment and gets a small return in the long run. 3.
Multiplier effect. Indie retailers
keep their profits local, and tend to trade goods and do business with other
local operations, such as accountants, lawyers, advertisers, printers, and of
course, local banks. Chain stores
not only distribute from giant national warehouses but produce their
advertising and do their other support tasks outside the community in which
they build. Sending your consumer
dollars to Arkansas (much less offshore banks- kwc) is not good for community
sustainability in the long term. 4.
Fewer Choices. Consolidation of
buying patterns reduces choices and the range of products available to the
consumer. You can see this on your
grocer’s shelves when mega buyers demand more shelf space or at the bookstore
where one Barnes & Nobles is just like every other in terms of selection.
(What about local culture and color? – kwc) 5.
Monopoly Prices. Surveys found
that prices vary significantly from one major chain outlet to another and are
higher in areas where the local competition has been eliminated. This includes Wal-Mart and Home
Depot. (Note lawsuits where unfair
business practices are proliferating – kwc) 6.
Long-term Commitment. Local
merchants are residents of the communities they invest in, it’s where they pay
their taxes and raise their children, whereas global chains are highly
mobile. In addition to demanding
tax incentives to come into a community, when they leave with changing economic
winds they leave behind large properties not well-suited to other development,
and in fact often hold their leases for years to keep competitors from coming
in, so that vacant big box stores are now a common blight – by itself, Wal-Mart
has almost 400 empty stores across the US. 7. The
Big Picture. Economic research
being gathered shows that cookie cutter developments lessen a community’s
appeal to entrepreneurs and skilled workers and in the long run reduces
prospects for new investments and jobs.
Too
many of us for too long have assumed that bigger is better, that the
liabilities are offset by the advantages, or this is just “the price of
progress”. Aside from the environmental
and social/civic costs to the community when local businesses are displaced, there
is the even broader issue of democracy and sovereignty, since large corporate
chains are wielding their assets long-distance. What needs to be addressed here, those who are studying this
seem to be saying is, level the playing field with public policy. For those of us in industrialized
countries staring at sprawl and closed businesses with high unemployment, we
should be addressing the rules of doing business at the local level more intelligently
and aggressively. I am a cultural Globalist
but want to see local businesses have as much given to them as the big
corporate houses. Who needs a monoculture? It’s all about balance and
moderation. – KWC Also
see Failed
Empire, a four part
series in the Buffalo News concerning enterprise zones and tax incentives http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20030608/1048744.asp or contact me
offline for a compiled Word document.
|
- [Futurework] Local living economies Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies William B Ward
- [Futurework] LETS are failures (was: Local ... Keith Hudson
- [Futurework] RE: LETS are failures (was... Karen Watters Cole
- [Futurework] How many electricians? (wa... Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies Harry Pollard
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies wbward
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies -> t... Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies -&g... Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
- RE: [Futurework] Local living economies Cordell . Arthur
- RE: [Futurework] Local living economies Karen Watters Cole
- Re: [Futurework] Local living economies Ed Weick
- Re: [Futurework] Local living econo... Brian McAndrews
- Re: [Futurework] Local living ... Ed Weick
- Re: [Futurework] Local living ... Franklin Wayne Poley
- Re: [Futurework] Local living econo... Harry Pollard
- Re: [Futurework] Local living ... Ed Weick
- Re: [Futurework] Local liv... Ray Evans Harrell
