You realize that the explosion of Walmarts didn't do a lot to foster a competitive balance right?
You're probably not old enough to remember when Sears and A&P were fearsome monopolies ...
Anyhow, as much as I hate WalMart, I will go to a WalMart in preference to almost ANYTHING local in small town America.
I do remember "old school" small town American businesses--yes, they were slow. But they had lots of oddball stock, gave good advice, and, they would give you a slow deadline, but they would move heaven and earth to make sure that they hit it if something went wrong.
About 1990, or so, that all changed in small town America. Inventories went to shit. Advice became laughable. And deadlines became optional.
At that point, why shouldn't I go to WalMart?
The biggest problem was that areas switched from growth to contraction. Once that happened, everybody tightened their belts and customer service along with inventory are the first to go.
Unfortunately, while that may get you through the next quarter, it kills you in the long run.
Can you explain how exactly?
EDIT: Walmart is also more convenient than most other businesses because you can get everything in one place
There were many advantages of Walmart at the time. Perception of lower prices, much more convenient hours (many local shops closed at 5-6), better product selection with frequently updated stock, etc...
I'm wondering if there aren't quite a few on HN that don't even know what a pre-Walmart world was like, especially in smaller cities/towns.
I don't have a Walmart near me, I live in city where there isn't one, I actually don't know much about the Walmart experience. So its not really such an obvious question is it?
>"I'm wondering if there aren't quite a few on HN that don't even know what a pre-Walmart world was like, especially in smaller cities/towns."
Not only am I old enough to remember pre-Walmart but I'm also old enough to remember Pre-Internet.
Your comments are both presumptuous and arrogant.
You were lucky if they had your size in everything you wanted to buy. Meant going to several different stores.
I was around for the opening of a new store in the late '60s early '70s: K-Mart. It has everything. So Meijer's had to compete and lower prices.
This apparel example happened across all items Walmart stocked. The local store had to compete on price.
We pay less now In absolute $$ on clothing than we did 30 years ago.
Carter's for children and infants is actually cheaper in the Carter's store than the Carter's sold at Walmart.
Competition lowers prices and makes stores and manufactures find new ways to make things cheaper. All to the benefit of consumers.
I look at my phone Bill to realize how ridiculous the pricing is. Pay $100 for two phones. Twenty five years ago a $40 phone bill would call for a family meeting.
So as Walmart and others helped bring down lower prices other areas suck up the savings
In the clothing industry this was mostly achieved by shipping manufacturing to Asia or Central America, and paying slave wages. It hasn't been great for the environment either.
There's no need to take this sort of tone. Asking how is a valid question, and the most generous reading of it assumes that the user wants a real answer, not that they are asking a rhetorical question.
I apologize if I over reacted to the parent. At the same time while I understand some of the negativity towards Walmart there were a lot of positives that came out of it's growth also.
The only confrontational word in that question was "exactly."
It's a fair question because of many people who do remember the pre-Walmart times (their big expansion was in the late 90s-early 2000s). The going narrative at the time was that local businesses were destroyed and this was a tragedy. Additionally, Walmart was one of the first retailers to primarily buy products from Chinese manufacturers instead of sourcing American-made products (after the death of Sam Walton). There were frequent news stories about how a factory closed and all the laid-off workers got jobs at minimum wage at Walmart, selling the very goods they previously made. Several municipalities enacted "no-Walmart" legislation and zoning regulations. Even South Park made an episode about the phenomenon.
Looking back, it might have been unfair to demonize Walmart for what was likely the rational decision to make in a competitive environment. But taken in context for the times, Walmart's growth in the late 1990s/early 2000s was controversial and frequently challenged.
Walmart changed all of that. They were open long hours, so you could go after work. You could return anything, for no reason at all, for a full refund. And prices were low, and consistent nationwide. And you didn't have to drive around to several different stores, maybe even in different towns, to get several different items.
Really they "basically gave you the finger"? Or maybe could it have been that they would to have to absorb that loss out of pocket because of their distributors policies?
>" That "wonderful" "personalized" service from mom-and-pop shops? Mostly myth"
That's a sweeping and completely unsubstantiated generalization. My own experience and history informs me differently. I'm sure I am not alone in that.
But yes thank God for Walmart. I don't know how we functioned as a society before we were entitled to return our purchases months later for no reason at all or when stores closed at 9:00PM.
What loss? All they have to do is put it back on the shelf and sell it again. I'm not talking about perishable groceries here.
>That's a sweeping and completely unsubstantiated generalization. My own experience and history informs me differently. I'm sure I am not alone in that.
I think it's correct. My own experience and history informs me differently. I'm sure I am not alone in that, especially considering all the other comments in this thread.
>or when stores closed at 9:00PM.
This one is just plain wrong. Mom-and-pop stores closed at 5PM; they had "banker's hours".
Why are you sticking up for the mom-and-pop stores so much anyway? Especially with such bogus arguments?
It's certainly relevant that we could go after dinner, when many specialty stores were closed, and the prices were probably better. But even without those benefits, the increased efficiency was a big win – especially for parents where every transition from car to shop to car was a hassle.
Do you not realize that Mom and Pop stores are still around? There not note extinct so I'm not sure why you are talking about that the past tense. There are many in my neighborhood and none of them close at 5:00PM.
Have you ever been to New York City? Your dry cleaner, your pizza place, hardware store, your news stand, your bodega - all are Mom and Pop shops.
>"Why are you sticking up for the mom-and-pop stores so much anyway?"
Because without them we are left with an endless horizon of chain stores and sameness.
Do you realize how central the role of Mom and Pops shops has been in the history of the US and continues to be today? The history of the US which is the history of immigrants is inextricably tied to the existence of the Mom and Pop business[1].
>"Why are you sticking up for the mom-and-pop stores so much anyway?"
You are actually asking why am I sticking up for the small guy? See all of the above.
[1] http://business.time.com/2012/06/15/immigrants-outpacing-the...
Go back in time to the 70s and they did. They only stay open late now because peoples' expectations have changed.
>Have you ever been to New York City?
NYC is not representative of the rest of America in any way. There's not even any Walmarts there. This is about regular America where there are Walmarts, which usually means more rural areas where Walmart is the main retailer.
>The history of the US which is the history of immigrants is inextricably tied to the existence of the Mom and Pop business[1].
Oh please, spare me the romantic and mythical view of the past. That's just like all the conservatives who pine for the "good ol' days" of the 50s and Norman Rockwell paintings, when in real life America was never like that.
The history of immigrants in the US is inextricably tied to labor exploitation and horrendous working conditions, not mom and pop businesses.
>You are actually asking why am I sticking up for the small guy?
In any small town decades ago, the local merchants weren't "small guys", they were some of the richest people in town.
You want to make sweeping blankets like "they all close at 5:00" and then you want to move the goal posts and say the discussion is only about "regular America" whatever that means or "back in the 1970s".
Replace New York with Boston, Austin, Los Angeles or New Orleans etc and the majority of businesses are still Mom and Pop. For some reason you have(incorrectly) equated Mom and Pop to mean rural America. Mom and Pop businesses are not the exclusive domain of small town America. Similarly they are not just a thing of the past as you keep referring to them.
It really appears as you have no interest in engaging in a discussion but rather just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Even your diction "oh please", "Spare me" and "bogus"? What are we in a dive bar?
That's really rich coming from someone who just went through all my recent posts and down-modded them. You're a petty, vindictive little person, and you have some real gall to call me immature.
>You want to make sweeping blankets like "they all close at 5:00"
These are reasons that many people here, including me, have given you for why we liked the effect Walmart has had. You just refuse to accept it. The statement doesn't have to be true for all small businesses nationwide, just enough of them, and in a time before Walmart, which I'm quite sure you don't remember.
People downvote responses in discussions all the time its a standard part of HN. People downvoted my as well. I don't get upset or accuse people of doing it.
Nowhere have I refused to accept that people have valid praise for Walmart at all, nor have I begrudged them that.
What I have disagreed with are wildly exaggerated and patently untrue statements made about Mom and Pop stores such as "they all close at 5:00" and "They don't ever allow returns" and "they ever have any stock."
All of these things are wildly untrue. That's what I have disagreed with.
Every time one these absolute falsehoods is pointed out you move the goal posts, again saying things "The statement doesn't have to be true for all small businesses nationwide, just enough of them"
But again you seem more interested in arguing than engaging in a productive adult discussion.
Is this a distinction that matters to the end-customer, who only knows that they can't return the item?