On 6/26/03 12:54 AM, "Dyna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The food at the perverse co-ops we have here is so expensive you need > to have the income of a Young Urban Professional to afford it. Or else > a yuppie wannabe that lives in a cheap apartment in the 'hood and can't > afford a car because they spend so much of their meager income at the > co-op.
Question: if someone shops at a co-op AND does not own a car, does it logically follow that the co-op patron cannot afford a car? Perhaps it means the co-op patron *gasp* does not WANT a car (I realize this comes as an immense shock to some readers - take a few seconds to get your senses back). >> The less wholly Minneapolis embraces the big box, in my opinion, the >> more flexible we are, the more easily we may resist major problems if >> the big box trend is reversed. > > The big boxes are here, deal with it. We cannot legally harass them in > hopes they'll leave. But we certainly can strongly oppose adding MORE of them. We're doing a pretty good job of it over on Central Ave. so far. >> For instance, what might happen if the third-world economies producing >> many of our retail goods are allowed to develop to the point where >> they refuse to work for peanuts - either due to the gradual increase >> in living standard promised by free-marketeers or by a local revolt >> against the export economy? If Walmart cannot push its prices down by >> pushing its suppliers' prices down because said suppliers' bottom line >> rises due to fair pricing for labor, can Walmart still function? Will >> the current retail system hold up to such a challenge? > > You underestimate the big boxes ability to adapt, and labor cost > increases will affect WalMarts competitors too. I don't think so. The advantage that big boxes claim is low prices. It's certainly not better service - except in the case of competition between big boxes, i.e. Wal-Mart and Target. In addition to providing better service, smaller retailers tend to get more of their products from local suppliers/manufacturers whenever possible. That's part of how they better serve the overall community - by spending locally the dollars that they take in from their neighbors. >> b) Given that avenues of local, small business are a major factor in >> the success stories of the most successful areas in the Twin Cities >> (and many other cities), we should do our best to even the playing >> field between local small business and multinational corporations. >> This means, at very least, not giving the latter taxpayer-funded >> incentives to locate in our communities. If Targets and Rainbows are >> truly more efficient, better businesses, let them take care of >> themselves. If Jerry's turns around a few years from now and demands >> a handout to stay, we must allow the "free" market to rule. > > None of these businesses are currently asking us for a handout, and it > is not the business of Minneapolis to favor small business over large. Ahem? I think that downtown Target got a little bit of a handout, didn't it? Didn't Block E, which is home to big box retailer Borders and chains like Applebee's get a little something? Ron Leurquin mentioned earlier this week that part of why the proposal for a Cub Foods on Lowry/Central died was because no subsidy was going to be available. I sure hope Jerry's Foods sticks with their plan of not asking for any subsidy, but forgive me if I don't hold my breath in anticipation. Dyna is at least correct that it's not the business of Minneapolis to favor small businesses over large. I just wish it wasn't the business of Minneapolis to favor large businesses over small as that's certainly been the trend in recent years. Who hasn't heard a story about a small business that has been all but screwed by the fact that the city's regulatory process requires a team of lawyers and accountants to even try to negotiate? I remember some campaign promises being made to address that - anybody aware of any progress being made? >> This all leads me to the most fundamental doubt I have about your - >> and other big box boosters' - view of economics: that size is always >> better. There are benefits to bigness, no doubt. But I'm not >> convinced that these benefits have as much to do with "efficiency" as >> they do with economic power. Walmart has the power to force its >> suppliers to lower their prices by threatening to cut them out. >> Walmart has the power to squelch competition by losing money at a >> given store at a rate it can absorb, due to its size. Neither of >> these are examples of an "efficient" use of resources; they are >> examples of the bullying of the weak by the powerful. > > What you are talking about monopoly abuse of power and I abhor it as > much as you. You may abhor it, but you still support it with your purchasing choices. Last time I checked, actions spoke louder than words. > However, the percentage of revenue going to CEO pay in a small > business could easily be much higher in a small business. You also > forget that economies of scale in larger business tend to reduce > administrave costs. And the percentage of revenue going to owners (small businesses don't HAVE CEOs) is often less than what goes to the workers. Those who got to the end of that article David Brauer cited yesterday and read the "reader responses" might have noted a couple of examples of small business owners who talked about when times get tough, they end up not paying themselves anything after making payroll. Someone mentioned that an advantage of small businesses is owners are less likely to engage in shenanigans because their families would have to live with the consequences. Small business owners are also far less likely to lay off workers indiscriminately because it's harder to put your friend out on the streets than it is some random human that you know by an employee ID, if that. I also have to question the assumption that larger businesses have reduced administrative costs. Take a typical small retailer, for example. You'll have the owner, maybe an in-house accountant and the rest of the employees would be "floor staff" who are out doing the day-to-day work. Contrast that with, oh, say Supervalu. They have a CEO (who made $1.7 million last year, by the way), probably a handful of VPs, a whole pile of "supervisors" or "directors" and then the "floor staff" who are out doing the work. Which system sounds like it has lower administrative costs? >> One anecdote, which I will counterbalance with one of my own: when I >> worked at a co-op, (Seward) I received health care. My wages, while >> not stratospheric, were by far not the lowest I've had. I know folks >> in co-ops who make a very decent living - rivaling my current 28K. >> Perhaps not enough to raise a family of four, but how is that >> different from the situation at Cub? > > Peanuts, and how about a pension? Dyna, nobody gets a pension anymore unless they're fortunate enough to work in a union-represented job like you and I. As for $28K, that works out to about $13-something an hour - far more than any non-union big box retailer is gonna pay and on par with what a union-shop Cub Foods would pay. And how is $28K peanuts to you, anyway? I thought you were supposed to be a poor Northsider? It's sure not peanuts to me - that's what my starting pay was when I began working with the state and that's with a BS in chemistry! > Given the lack of places to spend it here it wouldn't make much > difference. Connie Beckers painted a far different picture. Care to comment on that? > I'd love to be able to shop in Minneapolis, but I often can't afford > too. That's why I and many of my neighbors have to shop in the suburbs. > And often times we can't even find what we need here- how many new car > dealerships are left here? Saturn of Minneapolis - 625 Marquette Ave. South. >> Really, though. The concern you express most often on this list >> centers around crime. Would you advocate a system under which the >> Northside funded its own cops, without help from other Minneapolis >> taxpayers? Or are there limitations to how far we should "bugger > off"? > > Strangely enough local control of the police might actually work > better. For example, downtown gets a huge police presence despite > having a small population. That said, the shopping behavior of > Minneapolitans cannot save our city- the much larger decisions made at > the state and federal capitols have a much larger effect. You forgot something, Dyna. If Northside were to fund it's own police, then it would mean that only Northside's tax base would be available for that funding. Given the picture you paint of limited retail options and fleeing homeowners, it's probably safe to presume that Northside doesn't have the tax base that other neighborhoods do. Combine that with the high crime rates you complain about so much, and that would mean that your costs for funding police can be expected to be quite high. So high cost divided by low tax base equals way higher tax rates than you pay now. Hope you've picked out that RV because you just taxed yourself out of your home with that idea. Mark Snyder Windom Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
