Good articles, read them end-to-end. Unfortunately, my response will not be as detailed as the articles themselves.
The organic mislabelling is strictly illegal, I advocate that companies can do whatever they want provided it is within the law, not that they can do illegal things. Besides, they didn’t do something illegal just because they are a big company, small companies (and self-employed individuals) do illegal things on occasion as well.
As far as using, “Natural,” as opposed to, “Organic,” on the packaging goes, I have no problem with that. There’s nothing illegal about calling a product, “Natural,” the article even says so and this is because natural has not been strictly defined in this sense. Organic is a word that has been strictly defined, so it is illegal to call it organic if it is not organic, and I do not advocate doing so. If the consumers believe, “Natural,” translates to, “Organic,” or, “Better than Organic,” then they clearly don’t understand semantics very well.
It’s not the fault of business that someone wants to think natural actually means organic, even if they, in part, caused them to think that.
There always seems to be some to replace those that have passed on.
I think that the most expensive shoes I’ve ever owned were $70, American, some kind of dress shoes. I’m not going to buy anymore leather shoes, but I still occasionally wear the ones I have now because it’s really too late to do anything about the fact that I bought them.
It’s interesting that you consider them a source of joy, I honestly don’t think I’ve ever held shoes in that sort of regard.
Tax is a different thing altogether. Taxes are necessary in order to have the very things that we consider as basic conveniences and find ourselves entitled to. Police protection, fire protection, reasonably good roads, etc.
Wal-Mart is not social infrastructure, even though people would spend more on groceries without Wal-Mart (at least, those that choose to shop at Wal-Mart) a lack of a Wal-Mart doesn’t rise to the level of public inconvenience that having major roads in disrepair would be.
As I may have mentioned, and again, this might be the case only in America, but most Wal-Marts have a Target or some other kind of superstore nearby that they must price-compete with. For this reason, it’s not like competition would be completely eliminated, so I don’t think short-terminism comes into play here. In very few areas, at least areas of any population significance, will you have Wal-Mart be the only superstore within fifty miles.
It’s just consumer evolution:
Small competes with Small
Big competes with Small
Big competes with Big (and Small, but Small is a blip on the radar at that point)
Exactly! For me, it doesn’t even have to be endorsed by a celebrity, it just has to be cheap and has to make my hair clean. Styling Gel is the only thing I’m particular about, it has to be Schwartzkopf Got-2-Be Spiked Up!
I might give you the point about going on holiday, but typically they would go on holiday anyway, maybe they spend a little more while they are there or stay in a better hotel, I don’t know.
I’m not going to concede your point that they save up, at all. All you have to do is look at America’s savings rate pre-superstore and post-superstore to know that is not at all the case.
I’m not talking about buying extra chops because the chops are a lower price, I’m talking about maybe somebody saves some money on their groceries, so they buy a shirt, or a CD, or more expensive food items that are available, something like that. I’ll give you an example, I used to buy the generic Kroger cheese prior to Wal-Mart coming to town because even though I prefer Borden cheese, I don’t think my preference justified an extra $1.50 for 24 slices of cheese. Well, now I go to Wal-Mart and they have generic cheese, but the Borden cheese is the same price as the generic cheese I was buying at Kroger, so now I just buy Borden cheese.
I agree with you that it increases disposable income, but it’s not like ALL of that disposable income will be used out of town, in fact, I would argue that most of it is not. Even something as simple as buying a 20oz. Pepsi when you’re in the check-out line. (Yes, Wal-Mart charges less for those than Kroger does too!)
Why should Moundsville give a shit about Benwood? Even the State of West Virginia wouldn’t give a shit about Benwood, because either way, the money is being spent in the State of West Virginia.
If I kick the ass of the hotel down the street, do I give a shit about them? Of course not. If they closed that would just be more business for me!
Obviously, a city can’t close, even though it can technically not be a city anymore. But, if Benwood becomes a complete shithole with lower property values, maybe some of the lowest-class of the people in Moundsville will move to Benwood for that reason, the whole thing is great for Moundsville all-around!
LOL
Good argument, just because something isn’t doesn’t mean that it should not be. The problem is that I think this particular argument makes it almost something of a moral question, where I do not believe most people view it as a moral question. To the average person, whether they want to pay $2.19 for a 16oz. Jif Peanut Butter or whether they want to pay $3.49 for that same jar of peanut butter does not really qualify as a moral question.
It’s always the same thing, big bad Wal-Mart wants to come into town, so the people raise a firestorm. Many of the people don’t go to the grand opening, maybe they don’t go for a few months. Then, one day rolls around where they need something that they can either drive a few miles for, or go to Wal-Mart, steering wheel cover, something like that. They go to Wal-Mart and they realize it’s not that bad of a store, mostly because it’s new, and buy the time it ceases to be new, they’re just used to it anyway, don’t even notice. The one thing that they do think is: Why have I been paying $1.30 extra for every jar of peanut butter for the last three months, that was kind of silly, wasn’t it?
Personally, I think the whole “organic” movement is a sham. It is prohibitively expensive to get the certification. If you are willing to pay the premium price, why not spend a few minutes (OK, hours) researching local farmers. Buy from the “good” ones (however you want to define that) and there you have it. In my experience, the price is on-par with high-end mega-organic products found at major grocery stores.
For example, I recently bought some locally grown beets. The farmer is organic, but too small-scale to pay for the “organic” certification. They were $4.50/bunch at a local market that specializes in this sort of thing. At a nearby Marsh (a large grocery store chain), organic beets are $4.25/bunch. And modern beets are $3.50/bunch. The extra $0.25 doesn’t mean terribly much to me and I’d rather support truly excellent farming.
I definitely agree with that, Xunzian, especially if one is so inclined. There’s someone that lives about a mile from me that has a farm outside of where they live where they produce truly organic brown eggs. Definitely organic, I could drive down there and watch the little hens run around if I want to. Anyway, they only charge $1.50/dz. as a matter of fact, which is less than even Wal-Mart’s price on Organic eggs.
They must take the hens somewhere else in the Winter or something, though, because they don’t sell the eggs through the Winter, so then I have to go to Wal-Mart and get Eggland’s Best.
I definitely support local farmers and local products, in general, unless there is such a great discrepancy in cost that I find doing so to be unjustifiable. You know, if Tom’s Hardware on the corner carried the same set of Allen Wrenches that Wal-Mart does for only a dime or a quarter more, I’d get them there, but you’re talking about two extra dollars for the exact same Allen Wrenches, I’m not going to do that.
A market stall isn’t a marketplace, either. But a marketplace is absolutely part of the social infrastructure, both in terms of getting goods to members of society and the demands that the supply chain has to meet.
And like evolution, it adapts to the environment, and adapts the environment to itself. And as humans show, when you adapt the environment to yourself, it pays to be careful.
Indeed, my point was only that if not all of it is used in town, the council can’t necessarily bank on breaking even at minimum.
You were arguing that the net effect on employment evens out or even goes up - based on Moundsville:
… but you didn’t take into account the impoverishment of another community:
It’s a prime example of overly-bounded problem-solving. If you could clear up the sea pollution in the gulf oil spill by driving the oil up into the bayou, you’ve done your job and solved your problem as maritime environment manager. Really, all you’ve done is shifted the shit into someone else’s lap.
Is the problem as you see it that is is posed as something moral when it shouldn’t be, or that people don’t see it as a moral question when it should be?
In my view, sitting in the middle of a fairly consumerist-based society, every purchase is an exercise of power, a vote for values, a moral choice. If the system conflates money and power, then your use of money is by default a moral question. If the use of power in a social framework isn’t moral, what is?
The point here is that there will always be competition, it’s just a question of who is competing with who. As long as you have competition, then prices are kept at least reasonably low.
You know, all the small-time merchants had it made before Wal-Marts and other superstores came around because it was occasionally the case that they were the only people within x miles selling a certain item. It can reasonably be argued that supercenters have made some markets less captive.
That’s true, but if you assume that you will gain some out of town revenue from it, then it can be pretty safely inferred that you will break even. I suppose it is not absolutely the case, but what is?
That’s a fair point, but Wal-Mart employs more people than all of the places that closed in Benwood, combined!
On top of that, what you’re talking about is taking your problem and making it someone else’s problem, but theoretically, the Gulf and the Bayou are not competitors. The City of Moundsville and the Village of Benwood are competing for tax revenue, scarce resources, Moundsville saw that they needed to get another major store in there and make it attractive for them to come to Moundsville.
I see it posed as something moral when it shouldn’t be. From a certain perspective, due to mandatory regulations, the current market is even more, “Moral,” than a truly free market would be. You have the buyer, you have the seller, and you have the marketplace where the buyer and the seller meet. If you want to entice the seller to buy from you, it does not necessarily require that you have the lowest prices, but if you do not have the lowest prices, then you must have a combination of other elements (still including price) that will drive the buyer to purchase your goods.
You know, some guy that owns a hardware store crying, “Oh, God, please help me, I can’t compete with big bad Wal-Mart,” is enough for some people to buy from him, and for some people it is not. He’s got to find some combination of reasonable prices, advertising and service that is going to allure people, raising his prices even more (typical reaction) in a desperate effort to keep his profit margins the same will not do anything for him.
It has nothing to do with values, values is just an advertising word. You know, an owner of a small hardware store says, “Stand up for the American way of life, buy from locally owned stores,” well, it has nothing to do with morals to him. Of course he wants you to buy from a locally owned store, because he owns one.
What Pandora was getting to is that morality declines as the feeling of community between the buyer and seller declines and there is no sense of brotherhood stopping one from cheating and essentially hurting buyer, be it outright harm or dissatisfaction with service. Production quality &/or ethical standards declines as the seller’s size increases. This could be put in layman’s terms as a natural friend or foe sensory. Pyramid aristocracy through corporate takeover allows for alienation between the business and its clientele.
This is all very true, and even with a handful of name large companies that say they’re really in the best interest of their customer base, like Nationwide’s commercial slogan is “Nationwide is on your side” or whatever and their ads have the every day folk who work for them that do it because they care and not to put food on the table, let’s get real- who’s passion is getting people the right insurance plan, or better yet making your bed in a hotel room to make you comfortable, or taking your trash from the curb to…what, I can’t even excuse that one, who wants to be the freaking trash guy?
Wal-mart couldn’t be less concerned if you die from falling off of a wheeled step ladder than if they lose 2 million to it- numbers, quantified utilitarian replacements.
But, like I said, who’s to blame when one refuses to have a voice?
Fair is fair, Wal-mart is allowed to operate, they continue to be allowed to set shop in small towns, to find employees and buyers. We can blame the corporations for only so long until one admits that the population really is full of trash. By trash, the message is that these people don’t have the autonomy (or education) to care. They’re robotic slaves and they don’t care.
If you don’t care, if you don’t fight, there’s that quote:
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither- Benjamin Franklin
To counter, I would say that Tom of Tom’s Hardware couldn’t be less concerned if you die in that or any other manner, as well. The point is, Tom has to act like he gives a shit about you one way or another because it is that level of pretending to care about your customer that he uses to justify his higher prices. It’s not a matter of passion, or lackthereof, I don’t think. Whether one is an entrepreneur or an employee I think the goal of most workers is to find something that they are reasonably good at that sucks less than something else they could be doing.
The trash guy doesn’t want to work at McDonald’s, he’d make less money. Tom of Tom’s Hardware would rather put up with the rigors of owning his own store than working in the plumbing section of the Home Depot, he probably (again) makes more money owning and operating Tom’s…until he doesn’t.
The problem is that many people seem to believe that as the companies get larger they become less and less concerned with customer service, and that may be so, but the benefit to that cost is lower prices. Still, even though Tom’s Hardware may have better customer service, Tom’s concern is still the same as that of the CEO of Wal-Mart, to make money.
Do you think that Tom wouldn’t BE Wal-Mart if he could? If Tom’s Hardware grew first to a second location, then expanded to a different county, a different state, and then across the whole country lining his pockets with millions of dollars, do you really think he’d object?
The only people that would object are those who are so financially set that such a thing wouldn’t matter to them anyway. Such people don’t close their doors because they cease to make profits, but simply because they don’t think they’ll be able to sustain dipping into their personal pocketbooks to support the business.
End of the day, though, most people just want your money.
I run my own show, and I get tirekickers through the door on a constant basis. If they start to leave without purchasing something, I always say, “Come on back any time, bring money.” We laugh and you can almost here them thinking: I’ll be damned! That SOB is being honest. Sometimes, playing the game of not playing the game is fun for me and the potential customer. Worst case is that they realize that I’m not going to be blowing smoke up their skirt, and they come back - sometimes with money. The key is the same for the giant big box or the hole in the wall operation like mine. Work WITH people, not AT them. Most folks know the difference, and if they don’t, it is usually because they don’t want to or don’t care.
But what if Tom of Tom’s is in a small town with a population of 6,000 and he knows each of his customers by name. His daughter goes to school with so and so’s niece and half his church shows up at his hardware store weekly. What if Tom comes down with pneumonia and a loyal customer of 30 years, like the old lady that lives down the road, comes to his bedside to bring him homemade chicken noodle soup?
Is he only in it for the money? Will he attend said old lady’s funeral or just grab her cash and wish her a pleasant day while not thinking twice that she has cancer?
What if Tom has been passionate about hardware supplies and has had a tool collection since he was a small boy? What if his dream in life was to open up a store to provide goods and services to his neighborhood and help people find the right equipment for their home improvement? What if there was a demand for hardware and he fulfilled his compelling duty to the community by supplying it?
I don’t think Tom wanted to be CEO of Home Depot, he could’ve moved to New York for that…no, he felt that his out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere town was just right for him and his children, and that money wasn’t what he wanted in life.
That may be true of the trash man, or even Tom, but the point is, that if their position serves a purpose through communal give and take then the job isn’t meaningless day to day 9 to 7 labor for a paycheck. It’s about what he’s doing for others; not the money.
Lower prices comes with lower quality of products and humane treatment of the individuals who manufacture and sell them. That’s what I’m saying, Tom isn’t CEO looking after BILLIONS of people miles away, numbers, dots on a screen like in some kind of virtual reality video game where if he presses a button they go kablam. He’s Tom, Tom Green of southeast Arizona, and he’s fine with that. He doesn’t want money or control, no more than needed- he just wants to be happy being Tom, he wants to do his service for his neighbors, and that’s that.
That depends. You know, maybe the Tom we’re talking about reads too many Forbes articles or watches Donald Trump reality tv shows, and he doesn’t really like that old lady down the road because she lets her dog out and it poops on his lawn and every time she goes over to his house she asks for a favor. Maybe Tom really doesn’t like Arizona, it’s too hot, and it never rains. But let’s also consider that Tom isn’t likely to turn the other cheek when there’s trouble. He’s, deep down, concerned for his family and his friends and towns people and customers on the worst of days because that’s who Tom is. His relationships deal him his compassion, and his foes are far outside his town, strangers. He could never know what it was like to be the head hauncho, because he may dream of being a millionaire, but his heart is elsewhere.
That’s how human nature works. That’s why alienation is so prevalent in modernity, because of the information age…where we can be far away, yet so close…but it’s fake, it’s not real communication, it’s not face to face touchy feely emotion; it’s text or some such other simulation that gives us the illusion that we’re connected.
These are personal values that vary widely and can’t be set upon any said hypothetical individual as cold hard fact. Sure, this is the backbone of our materialist culture, but not everyone upholds the idea that money or worldly success is most important. Those who value family and community above all realize the sacrifice that must be made.
It’s not a lie. A customer assuming it’s a small independent company simply because the product containers, advertisements, etc. have a look and express a message that that customer sees as unique from “big business” is an incorrect assumption on their part.
Is it a lie if an author continues to publish his fiction without putting a notice on each cover saying that the book is a result of [list of family members, teachers, writers, social systems, etc. that he considers inseparable from the resources necessary to develop his product]?
How does it being owned by Colgate-Palmolive alter the Tom’s of Maine philosophy and resulting products, as specified on the website and product containers? How does it contradict the claims Tom’s of Maine makes of its mission statement, its business procedures and the resulting products its customers buy?
It only necessarily does if one assumes that :
if a company owns brands that manufacture any products with the use of A, B and C, the entire company–including every brand it owns–, the company either:
doesn’t understand the wrongs/sickness/immorality/etc. of and resulting from their use;
knows, but doesn’t care, as long as they make money; or
not only knows of these harmful effects (which they don’t disclose to customers) of A, B and C, but actually values and continues their use for the purpose of those effects.
In any case, the company is an active threat to what is good, because it doesn’t sympathize with the values and acts of goodness. They would understand the truth of what is good if they weren’t so corrupted or brainwashed by other values (like making a profit).
to buy this company’s products, to support it and have a part in its revenue and thus continued assaults on that which is good, is proof one does not truly understand and whole-heartily strive for what is good.
even if a brand owned by the company was previously independent –establishing its vision, practices and products without being owned by a company including brands that don’t operate and produce according to all the same concerns–
and has not demonstrated any contradictions to their prior values in practices and products after becoming a part of the company,
it cannot be trusted to meet claims and values that its owning company doesn’t rigorously and uncompromisingly apply to all its brands.
These assumptions are, of course, totally irrational. It’s the result of hazy black and white thinking.
Why don’t they clearly state it’s a product of Colgate on their product boxes? Because there’s no good reason to. They may be owned by a large company in the sense a majority of the profit goes to it, but when they were purchased one of the co founders was to remain to lead the company, still based in the same city, making the products with the same fundamental methods and ingredients; essentially, it is the same Tom’s of Maine product, even if it is owned by Colgate, which really just puts a lot of money into the supplies Tom’s of Maine needs, as well as marketing and whatever else relating to making and selling products uniquely visioned and manufactured by Tom’s of Maine.
Not including “A Colgate brand” all over the place isn’t a sneaky attempt to hide what the product really is.
Hopefully now you can admit irrationality on calling the information on their site lies.
You’re right, but it’s a whisper in a high wind. Even in Small, U.S.A, the dazzle of communication realities overcome the need for real human connections. I gave up declaring the emperor has no clothes on a long time ago. I realized that taking care of a handful of people is the best we can expect to do as an individual. And you’re right. It is about the people and not the money.
That’s a pretty strong argument for a hypothetical, I’ll give you that. I’ll even go as far as to admit that it could even be the case that Tom from Tom’s Hardware is exactly as you describe, but then again, he might not be exactly as you describe.
One thing that I can tell you from having lived in Moundsville, West Virginia, is that prior to Wal-Mart coming in there were almost no cashiers in that city that started above minimum wage, then Wal-Mart comes in and starts tossing around $8.25/hour vs. everyone else’s $5.15 like it doesn’t matter. Now, when you have some of these small-time store owners living in houses exceeding $300,000-$400,000 in an economically depressed area, I find it difficult to believe they couldn’t toss out another buck an hour if they wanted to. But, as with most businesses, they have a certain profit margin they want to maintain.
I don’t blame them, it’s up to them (within the legal framework) what they want to pay, I’m just saying that’s how it is.
The thing is, when someone says, “Mom and Pop store,” you picture this kindly old couple that have owned the same location for forty years who are struggling to get by, and in reality, it’s not always like that. Some people are genuinely good people, and some people are pieces of shit, and most people are something in between. I don’t pretend to know exactly how small business owners (on the whole) qualitatively compare to the population at large in terms of personality, but I don’t have any compelling reason to believe that small business owners are all fantastic, giving and generous people.
Also, you’re talking about making friends with the customers. I’m sure that people that work at Wal-Mart make friends with some of the customers they see regularly, and I’m sure that some of them also go to church with other members of the community. Again, this friendship with Tom is just being used to justify paying more money for what is materially the same item.
For some people that’s enough, and for many it’s not. It’s not for me, I have other things I could do with two bucks (especially when you take small amounts like two bucks and compound them over however many things you buy in a month). I could shop at places like that, or even other big stores like Kroger’s, but maybe that’s one less time I can justify all of us going out to eat, or taking my kid to Columbus Zoo, you see what I mean.
It may sound callous, but my wallet doesn’t care about Tom, or what he’s been passionate about since he was a young boy. I couldn’t give a shit about Tom any further than he sells me the stuff that I want to buy. If I want a set of Easton Allen Wrenches and I know the exact set that I want, how does his hardware knowledge come into play when I have to decide whether or not I want to pay two more dollars?
I suppose it might for someone who doesn’t know that it is an Allen Wrench they need, or how to use an Allen Wrench, but even the guys at Lowe’s or Home Depot can tell you that.
He may have fulfilled his duty to the community by fulfilling a demand for hardware, but the fact that Wal-Mart comes in doesn’t necessarily do anything to the demand side (in general) it just adds to the supply side necessitating somewhat lower prices in order to maintain market share. Besides, I doubt if he opened a hardware store strictly out of a sense of community, though I am not saying that has nothing to do with it. Anyway, the demand for hardware for that city (all other things equal) is unchanged, the only thing that has changed is the demand for Tom’s Hardware. He wants more demand, he has to do something for it, it’s that simple.
As far as being CEO of Home Depot is concerned, you can’t just decide you want to be CEO of Home Depot and then just do it. I’m sure that there may have been other reasons besides money he opened Tom’s Hardware where and when he did, but rest assured, money is one of his reasons for operating, or he would have just charged break-even prices the whole time anyway.
I disagree, I would say that as a result of having the job, he does something for others. I don’t think that the trashman became the trashman just to be a good community servant, I think he became the trashman because he is poorly educated and a City/County job was the best thing he could get into financially without the need for furthering his education.
To comment further, I’d need to better understand what you mean by, “Meaningless,” specifically. I hate to play semantics with you, but I’ve always considered making money the primary meaning of having a job.
Not necessarily right, and not necessarily wrong. Lower prices can OCCASIONALLY come with lower quality products, but in the case of Wal-Mart, their global distribution network and warehousing is so tremendous that they are able to offer lower prices through all of the money they save on distribution and bulk purchasing. It’s no secret that when you buy in bulk you save money. On the one hand, you might have Wal-Mart who orders those Allen Wrench Sets in the tens of thousands at a time, or at least in the thousands, whereas Tom’s Hardware might order, I don’t know, ten?
So, the company that produces the Allen Wrenches gives Wal-Mart a lower price for buying in bulk, and they want to ship the Allen Wrenches to Wal-Mart, of course, the Allen Wrench company does not intend to break-even on the shipping. Wal-Mart says, "No, don’t worry about that, just have our Allen Wrenches on your loading dock by (date/time) we’ll take care of the rest.
In the meantime, Tom’s gets his Allen Wrenches via UPS and pays out the ass when it comes to shipping costs per unit.
But, they’re the same Allen Wrenches, they come from the same manufacturer, it’s the same set!
In the case with both Wal-Mart and Tom’s, they have nothing to do with the treatment of the people manufacturing the Allen Wrenches, they’re just buying them.
This is the case almost anytime you have a difference in price on items that are materially the same by brand and quantity. That’s why grocery stores like Kroger have sales on special items, because they bought those items in bulk and may even be taking a slight loss on them in the hopes that you will buy other items (with better margins) while you are at the store. Superstores offer everyday low prices simply because they just buy everything in bulk, so they’ll have prices that are a little bit more than the sale prices on special items at other stores, but far less than the regular prices at other stores.
I’m not a sale shopper, I’m a busy guy, I want to go to one store a week and be done with it.
Again, service might have something to do with it, but not everything. Tom still wants to maintain a certain standard of living, for some people, the standard of living they insist on (potentially reflected in their prices and profit margins) is different than others.
Anyway, distribution is one of the greatest costs associated with getting a product from the manufacturer to the customer, big chains have it, small operations don’t have it. But, many small operations survive based on customer service, convenience, or dealing with specialty items. That’s the point, you must find a way to survive, it’s not Wal-Mart’s fault if you don’t and it’s not the consumers fault if you don’t.
Or, maybe it isn’t.
It’s efficient and cost-effective.
We definitely agree on this part, but when it comes to a specific individual we are still dealing in hypotheticals. Some small-time business owners are amongst the greatest people in the world, where some are pieces of shit.
One other thing that should be mentioned is that thus far in this discussion, we’ve only really taken into consideration items that both stores have, but we’ve not really gotten into items that a Lowe’s or Home Depot may have in stock that Tom’s Hardware does not.
For instance, if you want a Delta Bandsaw, Home Depot or Lowe’s could very well have it in stock whereas Tom’s doesn’t even have it in his store. Tom’s reasoning for this is valid and may go something like, “I can special order it for you, but with such limited space in my store, I can’t carry every brand of bandsaw there is, especially not knowing whether or not it will sell.”
At that point, Tom will probably first try to sell you the bandsaw that he has in stock (provided he carries bandsaws) and if that doesn’t work, he will offer to order you the bandsaw that you want.
This is where not just major retailers like Lowe’s or Home Depot come in, but also where the Internet comes into play.
Fifteen or more years ago, an individual might simply respond to this, “That’s terrific, you can actually do that!?” The individual will then proceed to order the bandsaw from Tom and generally pay whatever price Tom says the bandsaw is. Tom calls the manufacturer, orders the bandsaw and makes some money off that and propbably charges a little bit on top of his normal percentage because it had to be specially ordered, maybe he wants to make a buck or two over and above what he paid for shipping as well.
In this Internet age, Tom’s quotes a price on the bandsaw which factors in his retail markup as well as the shipping and handling. Tom’s quotes the price, and the customer says that he will call Tom to let him know and leaves. The customer goes home, he jumps on-line, and he determines that he can rush deliver the exact same bandsaw right to his door, get it a week faster, and still pay $20 less than what he would pay to have Tom order it in.
He tells Tom this and asks him if he can match the price, Tom says no but goes into a diatribe about how much of a pain in the ass it is to try to return a non-working item bought on-line, whereas if the unit that Tom’s orders in doesn’t work the customer can just take it right back to Tom’s…and wait for two-three more weeks for it to be replaced.
Ten or more years ago, that would have been a perfectly legitimate and valid argument, but in the meantime, on-line retailers have realized that even they must provide some level of prompt, efficient and reasonable customer service if even they wish to remain in business. The on-line retailers can also order in bulk, at least, compared to the rate at which Tom’s orders items, so they are able to offer lower costs.
They don’t have to pay for a physical store, they don’t have to pay cashiers like Tom’s does (especially during the time a cashier can go two-three hours without even seeing a customer at Tom’s) so they can clearly offer lower prices. Besides, someone might even be able to find that bandsaw used on-line and pay even less for it, and so it is for that reason, that even specialty stores find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to compete with on-line merchants.
That’s another reason you’re still going to have price competition even if all of the other small stores close their doors, because virtually any item except for certain grocery items can be purchased on-line at comparable or lower prices. Clothing, jewelry, CD’s, DVD’s, TV’s, DVD Players, Board Games, Health & Beauty Care Products, Pet Food, all of those items can be purchased on-line, and only the major players can compete with the prices that strictly on-line retailers can offer.
Ok but what I’m saying is that we shouldn’t be looking at this economically but, dare I say it, emotionally in that Tom is most likely very close to his customers in a way moreso than a Home Depot would in a 6,000 pop town. Why? Because he’s small, people know where the profits are going to, and they feel safer with money circulation staying inside their community. Tom’s going to give better service and have way more honesty because he really does care…plain & simple. Those that would rather spend their money at a chain corporation are either too stupid to know better, or …yeah, that sums it up.
Wal-mart doesn’t just buy from sweatshops; it owns them. Wal-mart’s quality doesn’t possibly go down with bulk manufacturing and penny pinching, it absolutely does as is evident in say their cookie brand, Great Value, compared to Chip’s Ahoy, compared to grandma’s kitchen (that’s not in reference to a brand, btw). We can see where the quality and taste fluctuates with ingredients and yes, even love… LOL ok, now I’m just being stupid, but she does have a magic to her baked goods. Wal-mart’s treatment of its employees brings them to the level of numbered automatons, its wages are awful, and its prices stay low because of child labor in Indonesia. How good should Tom be looking like now? Like a damn near saint.
Your hypothetical about Tom living in the nicer part of the mountainside or whatever well, let’s dissect that a little and see if we can’t find the faults with that claim.
Tom’s hardware certainly isn’t going to bring in that amount of revenue, first of all…it’s just a hardware store. Another thing is, in a supposed small town there’s going to be high demand for an assortment of different duties within the community. They need a doctor and a dentist and a grocery store and maybe some restaurants or icecream parlors or flower shops. (You ain’t got nothing on this neighborhood, Mr. Rogers). Do you really think that Tom’s going to be living the high life from a tool shack he gets fucked over for owning anyway because he can’t buy in bulk and the internet out does his prices? Nope. Do you think he’s really mad because of it? …Mmm, nope, probably not, other than the part where he’s losing his small business to global trade, but it’s not the money part that hurts, it’s probably the fact that he can barely afford to feed his family because Wal-mart’s on 31st street selling ply wood for half the cost.
Tom’s lived in that town for 50+ years, I’m sure he’s got a rival or two, but he has to generally have a feel for the customers and there has to be a built connection between the man and his friends, because they’re the ones who shop there.
At this point I’ve about had enough of the Tom’s Town clay model display, so I’m going to make it short and sweet.
Ultimately, small business is economically smart and ethically sound, international trade is overcomplicated and alienating, and corporatism can’t be defended with a straight face.
By the way, you’re right about the trash guy, and the guy who paints my house, but I failed to mention what ‘meaningful’ work I was talking about. A lawn mower service couldn’t care less about the caller from the Flyer who asks him up to drive 30 minutes away and do a job for a couple hours. I mean the kind of satisfaction that comes from not valuing money, the symbol to the work, but the ends to where the labor process will reach, and not expecting money to make one happy, but rather understanding that money is for comfort value, and overall status and appearance, and if one is to be honest with himself, money is only the means by which he achieves his basic wants to be loved and respected and have his needs met. Money is a meaningless term and a defective measure of worth. Not being able to contact or bond the end of, the customer, the friend, is the breaking point of this delicate process- think Heidegger. -_^