Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
That's a pretty sweeping generalization and you've made a lot of assumptions (e.g. that competition leads to fewer competitors general, that a few larger competitors pay less taxes overall, etc.). I think you've generalized the experience of your particular town to the entire world, and grossly oversimplified the complex politics, economics and societal factors that have probably resulted in your town being, in technical parlance, a "crap hole".
Everyone complains when a Walmart moves into their town, but no one ever thinks about the cost to consumers of blocking that Walmart and forcing everyone to pay higher prices to subsidize the mom and pop stores. Again, maybe instead of complaining about multinationals, we should raise taxes for everyone and give all small business owners a "thanks for trying" subsidy; that would be more efficient than blocking the Walmart, probably be cheaper, and spare everyone's feelings.
|
The supermarket prices aren't significantly lower than what the independent retailers used to charge, especially when you factor in the cost of travelling to and from them and the cost of what you end up throwing away because you switch to a weekly shop rather than just buying what you need each day.
But the point was more about the cost to society as a whole rather than to consumers. There's also a cost in employment. Over here we have a new scheme where the large corporations can have free staff under the guise of training, something that is denied to smaller businesses. That in itself cuts down on the number of paying jobs available to those who lost their old one. And with only 1 or 2 large employers in town, pay and working conditions start to be eroded.