Discount chains are thriving, but what do they do to poor communities?

But the headline and the general tone of the article is desperately trying to make it seem as if the dollar store is somehow the cause of urban decay (especially the middle section of the article, which tries really hard to blame the dollar store for the fact that it gets robbed). One of the clearer examples of the headline and tone trying to sell the writer's preferred narrative even when the actual facts presented undermine that narrative.

But the larger issue is that these kinds of stores are not "doing" something to communities. They are the reflection of (and maybe focal point for) what has already been done -- communities that are hollowed out of industries that used to sustain people who now don't have a lot of opportunities and can only afford such stores, or where it's too unprofitable or dangerous to sustain a traditional full service store.

If you want a real assessment of this country's prosperity (or lack of it for many people) -- or simply what happens when an economy is no longer in baby-boomer growth mode -- look to places like this where people who have been left behind in the "economic boom" have to shop because they have no other choices. Look to where the poor have to work/shop/live for the indicators of lack of leadership at a national/state level who don't understand that a single rising GDP number (for corporations) doesn't mean that all is good.

And by the way, don't blame the companies fully for it either. They just fill in the gaps where our ineffective governments have abdicated their responsibilities / role to take care of citizens. And the problem with companies filling in the gaps is that they have no real moral values or long-term responsibilities -- that's not their nature. They blow with the wind, or when enough public pressure causes them to have to do something -- until the next quarter.

Don't take the easy route and blame Dollar General. We're the dealers, they're just playing the cards.

The owner was trying to stay compliant with all the laws, and trying to fulfill the contract, but faced immense challenges. Ingredient swaps without notice, labeling issues, bottle consistency issues, etc.

It really opened my eyes to the quality side of some commodity-type products. We, as a society, need to become more aware of the supply chain of products we buy. When I mention Amazon comingles inventory, most people are shocked. They think Amazon Prime means Amazon has oversight and a motivation to control the supply chain from the manufacturer to the end user, which is simply not the case.

It's certainly challenging to figure out where stuff comes from, and suppliers are constantly changing, so you'll probably only be able to trace back 1 layer of manufacturing. Doing so helps give confidence in what you're buying.

[1] https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Poorly+Made+in+China%3A+An+Insid...

Bulletproof glass, remedial classes, and dollar stores reflect societal problems, so outside observers, in their great wisdom and compassion, decide they must be the cause of the problems. They campaign to get rid of them, completely oblivious to the fact that this would only hurt the people they supposedly care about, while doing absolutely nothing to address the real problems. Their injunctions are not even self-consistent: the dollar store is bad for not having the resources to prevent theft, while the corner store is bad for trying to.

This is a terrific article, but I hate the framing that the stores are the problem. They are clearly filling a vacuum left by cheap real estate and low wages. There is some evidence that the stores help accelerate the decline - but the exact same business model is present in a Daiso store without it ravaging Japan.

In nice coastal cities, the obvious problem is lack of zoned housing. But it's easy to overlook that for most of America, it's effectively over-zoned. We have huge sprawling cities and towns that have been hollowed out by population flight. In my parent's town, half of the buildings are derelict. Spreading thin what would otherwise be a vibrant business district. The deed holders have long since vanished without paying taxes.

The main difference I can think of is how cars and public transit are viewed and differ. In America, most people, excluding the poor and those in dense cities, have cars. The middle and upper class have ended up in "suburbia" in many parts of the country, where they've sprawled enough that any activity mandates taking the car. Those in this class all have lawns, and thus houses must spread enough that densely packed city blocks are really only for the lower class.

This is in stark contrast to Japan. Trains are taken by people of all economic class, and neighborhoods are generally a little more dense. Cars are not the everyday staple of life.

I think that difference leads to the need for a nearby corner-store that serves the small needs of life. The 6-pack of beer, the toothpaste and other small toiletries, the bread for breakfast.

There's clearly this niche of more frequent smaller "neighborhood" stores in Japan. Why does it end up translating so poorly here, even in larger cities where we have public transit (though significantly worse) and we have relatively high density, relatively walkable, cities?

I think people who have their life in order are often materialistic and value long-lived possessions. They see buying this "cheap Chinese crap destined for the landfill" as a sign of failure at life on the part of the buyers. But it's hard to blame poor people for behaving like poor people so somehow this article blames the shop.

Can someone please telegraph this quote to the Defund the Police movement?

When there is no Dollar General, the situation for poor residents is not better. It's worse. The cheap prices seem like they don't mean much to this yuppie moron journalist, but they are critical for families that live paycheck to paycheck.

This idiot thinks urban economics are driven from the retail sector ... he basically thinks the horse nourishes itself from its asshole. In truth, there has to be some economic activity in the city to drive the consumer spending which in turn drives retail. Dollar General and its ilk cannot simply create a healthy city by paying its workers more, even though this dumbshit journalist thinks so. Does that idiot theory even pass the most basic smell test.

I'm so sick of this anti-market rhetoric in America. Every ill in society is in some roundabout way placed at the feet of the market and companies.

If companies are so bad, we'd expect to see great happiness in places that have no corporations. In fact, its the f'in opposite. I actually do work in rural India. When its just "mom and pop" stores in a village the people are pretty much destitute. When corporations are present, incomes go up, goods and services improve ... its just common sense.

This idea that urban retailers somehow create urban decay is like a freshman Marxist take. How does this garbage get printed in newspapers in America?

And BTW, there are many security measures that stores can take to protect their employees and merchandise, but I can guarantee you this idiot journalist won't like them. They aren't pretty. Armed guards in stores and bullet proof glass, and merchandise under lock and key is not what consumers want.

I'm upper middle class and I shop at dollar stores because everything from envelopes to pens to bags of chips is cheaper at them.

The article somehow absolves (as in doesn't mention) local municipal government of having somehow influence over the crime and security of an area. Just having poverty doesn't mean that a neighborhood should be dangerous and crime ridden.

While Family Dollar is technically owned by Dollar Tree, it is not integrated and functionally a failed acquisition. Dollar General is not affiliated although Family Dollar attempted to acquire it.

DollarTree, on the other hand, is a true dollar store. I shop there often and it's my preferred choice.

In terms of clientele...

Whole Foods (Amazon)/Sprouts/Nob Hill (Raley's)/Trader Joe's/Harris Teeter/ Boutiques - elite Safeway (Albertsons)/Lucky (Savemart)/Publix/Kroger/Raley's/Walmart - mainstream Dollar General/Family Dollar - confused "dollar" stores that are not dollar stores Food Maxx (Savemart)/Foods Co (Kroger)/Winco/Grocery Outlet - bulk shopping outside Costco DollarTree/99 Cents Only etc. - true dollar stores for shopping while broke or not considering status Convenience stores/Corner stores - terrible places to shop.

Given choice, Dollar Tree always beats Dollar General and corner stores for availability of healthier foods at a lower price except produce.

Fun observation: Kroger's Foods Co San Francisco store is probably the city's largest liquor store. It has armed security guards. All liquor is at front of store.

Source: I maintain POS equipment for all major grocery chains. Dollar Tree is not one of them, I just shop there.

Then kindly provide some of that "growing evidence", rather than a bunch of anecdotes.

Dollar stores don't cause poverty but they make it harder to move on from.

I live in a former working-class low-rent suburb, and the displacement of dollar stores with real stores followed on from gentrification: it did not lead. The dollar stores that persist are in dark corners. (btw I am part of the gentrification problem: re-capitalising the locality is displacing people with less income)

Dollar store poverty trap includes being forced to re-purchase badly made cheap things, and live with hacks and bugs, because you cannot afford the well made rational alternative. The belief that all goods in a type are substitutable is simply wrong. (probably a strawman) -good wine has qualities beyond getting you drunk, cheap wine only meets the latter goal.

SONY is not COBY.