Did Reagan kill small business?

[Gameface]

I will be completely honest here. I care as much about their economies as the people in sweat shops care about mine.

I am just trying to figure out if the Wal Marts and tv oligopolies are a good thing.

I honestly don't know if they're a good thing. I hate walmart...yet I shop there. They attract bottom of the barrel employees because their pay sucks and they don't get treated very well. But they are less than a mile from me, their prices are pretty low, they are open all the time and they typically have what I want. Sucks that I can't get those things from a company that treats their employees better (and thus has better employees, meaning the ones at walmart would be out of a job).

 

[green]

If all we're left with is walmart and they raise prices then that opens the door to competition. They only dominate because they offer low prices and large selection at locations that are convenient.

This sounds nice, but in reality, it isn't true. The way corporations are set up nowadays is that they own every aspect of the process. Wal Mart doesn't buy furniture from Martha Stewart then resell it, like a small business would. They create the Martha Stewart furniture and then sell it.

Wal Mart doesn't have Wal Mart brand food cheaper because they want poor people to be able to enjoy knock off fruity pebbles. They have knock of fruity pebbles because if they can get everyone to switch to Wal Mart fruity pebbles, they can buy out/force fruity pebbles out of business.

If all we are left with is Wal Mart, then all we will be left with is Wal Mart.

For example, there is a dental company called Aspen Dental. They have offices all across the country. They have their own in house dental labs. When they open a new office, they do free exams and xrays, and fully plan on not turning a profit for 3-5 years. Their hope is to have their prices so low, that they force the competition out of the area, and when that happens they raise their prices.

When all that is left is Aspen dental, that will be all that is left. The reason why is because nobody will be able to start up a dental practice for free. Aspen will just undercut the new office, lose money on that location until the competition is gone.

Wal Mart will do the same. As will Comcast, Disney, AT&T, etc.

This idea that there will always be a place for competition isn't reality. It sounds really nice. I spouted that off for years, but in reality, it won't happen that way.

 

[green]

I honestly don't know if they're a good thing. I hate walmart...yet I shop there. They attract bottom of the barrel employees because their pay sucks and they don't get treated very well. But they are less than a mile from me, their prices are pretty low, they are open all the time and they typically have what I want. Sucks that I can't get those things from a company that treats their employees better (and thus has better employees, meaning the ones at walmart would be out of a job).

I know what you mean. I want to find out if Reagan's policies made it so other companies couldn't pay their employees more AND have better service (open off hours), AND still compete.

A small business can't compete with a corporation who can lose 5 times the revenue what the small business is worth and not even blink an eye.

 

[franklin]

If all we're left with is walmart and they raise prices then that opens the door to competition. They only dominate because they offer low prices and large selection at locations that are convenient.

That's not the case with monopolies who can lower the prices in certain locations to bankrupt a new startup. It's one the reason we have utility regulating boards and set up anti-competition laws against gas stations back in the 1960's (?).

For example, there is a dental company called Aspen Dental. They have offices all across the country. They have their own in house dental labs. When they open a new office, they do free exams and xrays, and fully plan on not turning a profit for 3-5 years. Their hope is to have their prices so low, that they force the competition out of the area, and when that happens they raise their prices.

Have you looked into anti-competition laws?

I agree with you about the monopoly problem. In the US we have more of a duopoly problem though. I recently shopped for appliances and HD and Lowes had the exact same models for the exact same prices. There was no competitive marketplace. For furniture, I have RC Willy, some really high end stores, or the closeout everything must go types. There is no competition for RC Willy. For cable, nobody is offering an a la cart option which is what the customer has been asking for forever.

 

[Harambe]

Why does walmart thrive? Because of dirty underhanded tactics or because they provide the low cost goods that consumers want and that allow lower income people to enjoy a better quality of life?

What are some of the nasty monopolies? Name them. Describe why they are destructive and not in the best interest of their industry of the consumers they serve.

I'm not saying that I know that no nasty monopolies exist, I just see a lot of people bemoaning large business that succeeds because it's the best at giving the consumers what they want.

I'm not going to argue much here, but look at the other side of that coin. Sure, Walmart provides low cost solutions to every day products so that the poor can use to enjoy a better quality of life.

But at the same time because they keep the prices so low, they make up for it by paying their employees very little and operate in the red. Which contributes probably(pure speculation) over 95% of their workforce into the welfare bracket. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. It's kind reminiscent(although to a lesser degree) of the central American people in the movie "The Rundown". Christopher Walken comes in to town and opens up a mine.. offers workers what they need to survive, but never give them enough money to truly make it out of that lifestyle no matter how hard they work.

My employer, a hospital, just came out with a new health plan that wasn't previously available over the last few years. The only in network providers are those that work for my company. Which means the money you're spending to pay for insurance for yourself is going back to the employer, along with any copays/medications you pay for.

This tactic is quite genius... a farmer that grows his own crops and sells the rest for profit. Self-sustenance. But when the crop is people's everyday lives, I think we have the right to be weary.

Also, with what you'd mentioned in your other post about when they buy up everyone and then raise the prices it opens up for more people to come in to compete. That can be true, but what happens when Walmart's the only entity with the kind of money it takes to start up a small business that's competitive? Or when they identify that there could be competition and buy them out even at a loss because in the long run it's totally worth it?

 

[One Brow]

Sucks that I can't get those things from a company that treats their employees better (and thus has better employees, meaning the ones at walmart would be out of a job).

I hear CostCo offers much better wages, and similar prices. Have you tried them?

 

[One Brow]

One solution for a lot of this is having a social safety where, even if you work at Wal-Mart, you have a decent living.

 

[Gameface]

I hear CostCo offers much better wages, and similar prices. Have you tried them?

I shop at costco but costco is not a place to go pick up a few things. You're standing in line behind 3-5 people who have several cart-fulls of crap, typically. They have no express lane as the idea is not to go in and grab an item or two. Plus they are much farther from my house.

I've been shopping at winco, an employee owned grocery store. Their prices are usually better than walmart's prices and the emplyees, while not Harvard grads, are a step or two above walmart employees and they typically have a positive attitude.

 

[One Brow]

I go to a union store (Schnucks) whenever I can.

 

[The Thriller]

One solution for a lot of this is having a social safety where, even if you work at Wal-Mart, you have a decent living.

Disagree (which doesn't happen often).

The safety net is exactly what is perpetuating this problem.

100 years ago Walmart would have either lost its workforce due to outraged strikers or the federal government would have intervened and forced owners to pay workers livable wages.

Instead, the "safety net" we have (food stamps in particular) allows Walmart to continue to shirk its responsibility to pay their workers, prevents workers from becoming outraged enough to protest/strike, and prevents the federal government from intervening significantly (like Roosevelt did in 1902).

Instead, the "safety net" makes it so Walmart owners can reward themselves bonuses while letting taxpayers subsidize their decision to pay their workers crap.

This quandary is highlighted by Stephen Colbert's video. Please watch, it's only 2 mins.

[video]https://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430680/november-19-2013/walmart-s-employee-food-drive

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I don't know why it has to be political, which tends to have a way of crowding the facts out.

You're in a mature business and I would expect big business competition to out compete you. It's no different than any other retail -- grocery, hardware, auto parts... they've all been gobbled up after their industries matured.

Craft brewpubs, on the other hand, are on the leading edge of innovation and are growing at an exponential rate. Same goes for tech startups.

If you want to start a farm today you don't grow corn. You open a greenhouse selling organic foods and rarities, start an herbs farm that grows high demand essential oils, raise exotic food animals or breed the smallest dogs you possibly can. You have to go into new markets if you don't want to compete with big business.


---


I'll see if I can find the gauge of small business startups. It's been years since I looked at it and forgot what it's called.

The biggest cash crop in the US is marijuana. Please edit your comment on farming.

 

[The Thriller]

Why does walmart thrive? Because of dirty underhanded tactics or because they provide the low cost goods that consumers want and that allow lower income people to enjoy a better quality of life?

What are some of the nasty monopolies? Name them. Describe why they are destructive and not in the best interest of their industry of the consumers they serve.

I'm not saying that I know that no nasty monopolies exist, I just see a lot of people bemoaning large business that succeeds because it's the best at giving the consumers what they want.

Walmart thrives because it has China make its crap and lets American taxpayers subsidize its workforce.

This kind of nonsense would never happen in the United States from the early 1900s until the late 1970s, Australia, Canada, most Western/Northern European nations, and in Germany (in particular). Walmart's owners just gave themselves a huge bonus while asking their workers to donate to themselves so they'd have food for a Thanksgiving meal. McDonalds has produced a training video recently. This video instructs workers to find a 2nd job and not use utilities. All this, while McDonalds just tripled its CEO's salary. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, hell, even Hoover wouldn't recognize THIS version of America.

Could you believe in the early 1900s a Republican President campaigned for a "square deal?" Meaning, a "fair deal" for workers at the expense of owners? Essentially, redistribution of wealth and government regulation and intervention. Could you imagine what he'd be labeled today? What about when coal mines shut down in 1902? Could you imagine a US President siding with the workers and demanding that the owners compromise or else face the full power of the US Army? It all happened in 1902.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Strike_of_1902

The good of the country came first back then. It was a realization that the majority of the country came first, BEFORE the 1percent My oh my have we forgotten this valuable lesson.

The answer to the OP's question? Absolutely Reagan attacked and killed small businesses. He wasn't alone.

The better question is, what the hell did he do to protect/help small business? Anyone have an answer?

As far as breaking up monopolies? Sure, break and tear apart Walmart. Fine with me. It wouldn't hurt. I'd like to focus more on Big Pass Gas (EXXON Mobile), the banks, and Big Pharm (which charges whatever it wants despite supposedly being "regulated.").

This might blow the minds of some here. Please watch this video. It's extremely informative and only like 3-4 mins:

[video]https://www.utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact/

 

[green]

Disagree (which doesn't happen often).

The safety net is exactly what is perpetuating this problem.

100 years ago Walmart would have either lost its workforce due to outraged strikers or the federal government would have intervened and forced owners to pay workers livable wages.

Instead, the "safety net" we have (food stamps in particular) allows Walmart to continue to shirk its responsibility to pay their workers, prevents workers from becoming outraged enough to protest/strike, and prevents the federal government from intervening significantly (like Roosevelt did in 1902).

Instead, the "safety net" makes it so Walmart owners can reward themselves bonuses while letting taxpayers subsidize their decision to pay their workers crap.

This quandary is highlighted by Stephen Colbert's video. Please watch, it's only 2 mins.

[video]https://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/430680/november-19-2013/walmart-s-employee-food-drive

This is part of what I was getting at. I agree 100%. It is really pissing me off that I have to pay taxes so Walmart can screw over their employees and make billions off of it.

True capitalism ends with Wal Mart owning everything. Is that what we want? You have to have regulations.

Also, aren't we the largest consumer in the world? Why don't we leverage that power more? Why are we cowtailing (gameface, did I use that right? ha ha) to every other country all while losing jobs to other countries? Why don't we just create an import tax big enough to convince Apple/Nike/etc to bring manufacturing jobs back?

 

[green]

This all reminds me of a case presented in one of the Freakonomics books, regarding sweat shops. They posit that the reason sweat shops even exist is because they are better than the alternative, that if there were better places to work with better conditions and higher pay then no on in those countries would work in sweat shops, and that maybe if we push to shut them all down, then we will lower the standard of living in those areas by removing the "best" employment opportunity many people there will ever get.

Why don't we then fight back against these sweat shops in the only way these companies will listen: Import taxes. Put a high enough import tax on items made in sweat shops and imported to America, and they will shut those shops down overnight.

 

[green]

Thriller - you are spot on with the companies. I have been a conservative all my life. Still view myself as one. BUT, conservatives run around yelling how they don't want big government running everything and crazy progressives telling me how to live my life, but deregulation will SO THE SAME EXACT THING.

Right now, we are run by a few large corporations. Obamacare was written by insurance companies. Not by politicians. Not by people we voted for. But by the companies that make money off healthcare. Same thing is happening with oil/speculation/etc. Isn't that just as bad?

We need regulation. Too much is a bad thing. But guess what? Not enough creates all the same problems.

We need to actually come together and quit yelling talking points at each other (which I have done my fair share of). This is a huge problem in this country right now, and hopefully has reached its apex under Obama. Someone needs to man up, and realize that ONLY by having far right, far left and people in the middle representing us AND ONLY by compromise, will we succeed.

Anyways, if we are all too pigheaded to realize this, then one day all our food will come from McDonalds, all our movies from Disney, all our sports will come from ESPN (Disney), and all our medicine from Pfizer. There will be no competition, there will be no way for us to better ourselves. Isn't that just as bad as a purely socialist country run by a dictator?

 

[LogGrad98]

Why don't we then fight back against these sweat shops in the only way these companies will listen: Import taxes. Put a high enough import tax on items made in sweat shops and imported to America, and they will shut those shops down overnight.

Did you read what I wrote? For many of these places the "sweat shops" represent the BEST employment opportunity. Shut them down and all they have left are WORSE options for employment.

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido

 

[green]

Did you read what I wrote? For many of these places the "sweat shops" represent the BEST employment opportunity. Shut them down and all they have left are WORSE options for employment.

I agree with what you said 100%. Shut them down and they are all screwed. BUT, I care about their economy as much as they care about ours. We need to take care of America first. Then we can worry about other countries.

We are headed down a path that will end with a few corps owning everything (which will be in essence, socialism) and revolution being the only way out. I don't think this will happen anytime soon, but we are at a crossroads, where we can take a step back on both sides and fix this. BUT, both sides have to give.

We need more regulation. Also, we need unions to fix themselves. Both sides need to actually start working for the little people instead of pharm companies, wall street, or oil tycoons.

Unless both sides shape up, we are screwed.

 

[green]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido

Rep if you post a summary.

 

[green]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido

Rep if you post a summary.