Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyx | Hacker News Reader

> it was because local people decided it was in their interests to pay a dollar less at Walmart

Well... isn't it? I'm not sure I like the implication behind how you've worded this. It's easy, as somebody fat with tech money, in the political know and with the benefit of hindsight, to call out those small-town rubes for their myopia, to say "but of course Walmart is a monopolist, of course the local grocer will suffer if you give Walmart your business; markets are zero-sum, isn't it obvious?"

But I don't think that's really fair. If I get paid a few bucks an hour in middle America and every dollar counts, obviously I'm going to go for the Great Value breakfast cereal or whatever: I don't really have the luxuries that would permit me to vote with my wallet.

View on HN

You are right, my tone suggests that I think people were stupid or actively chose Walmart over their local grocery store. I don't think that and should have worded it differently.

I do think it is a combination of the economic realities of people in small town communities where jobs are scarcer. And, I do think that most people, rich and poor, don't consider the impact of spending a dollar at a monopolist chain, and that most of that dollar immediately leaves their local community. If they spent it at the local grocery store, that money would recycle into the community 5,6, 7 times. I know moderately wealthy people who can't get past the poverty of their youth who are still excited that they can get milk for 75c cheaper at Walmart (despite what I consider poorer quality goods). It's an assessment I think is mistaken, and I believe was an active calculation Walmart and Amazon make on purpose.

"Low prices" is a really powerful drug to almost everyone. But, IMHO, it only works when you have monopoly power like Amazon and Walmart and can afford to underprice certain goods and negotiate prices in bulk in a way that small stores cannot, and I wish more people considered this.

Point taken, and thanks for your comment.

Well, I think his overall view is precisely that those people did not have the luxury of forestalling this problem, but they are the victims, and the government should step in to try to correct the problem.

Not trying to put words in the other poster's mouth, just pointing out you guys don't necessarily disagree on this point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com