"Two pounds of ham, please. Can you slice it really thin? I have a date with the household appliance section of the store"
"Two pounds of ham, please. Can you slice it really thin? I have a date with the household appliance section of the store"
This is cool tech and I'd want to try it, but I hate shopping anything Amazon. They had sd cards at their brick and mortar store, but I decided to buy one at Office Depot instead, even though it was $10 more.
in many rural areas of the United States, it is literally impossible to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart. Nebraska and Kansas had a rather large economic dive in the early 2000's due to the expansion of the Waltons. Their business plan is essentially:
1) Announce intention to move into area
2) woo politicians for financial kickbacks to subsidize expansion
3) launch with prices _far_ lower than all the competing grocery stores and harware stores.
4) Wait as other businesses run out of money due to not being able to compete on price.
5) raise prices once monopoly is established.
I moved from one of these places. Now I have 5 wal-marts in my city. I have zero issues with sabotaging their expansion into another country (Canada).
EDIT: Multiple lawsuits for predatory pricing: https://ilsr.org/walmart-charged-predatory-pricing/
http://www.academia.edu/1511858/The_Effect_of_Wal-Mart_on_Sm...
http://business.time.com/2014/02/24/walmarts-big-push-to-go-...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/study-proves-wa...
here's a few directly related to wage fraud:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/walmart_n_4466850.h...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-wage-employers-cost-taxp...
This is literally someone's homework.
> http://business.time.com/2014/02/24/walmarts-big-push-to-go-....
This offers no evidence of any harm at all.
> http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/study-proves-wa....
This talks about a study (but doesn't link to it) that says:
"The payroll results indicate that Wal-Mart store openings lead to declines in county-level retail earnings of about $1.4 million, or 1.5 percent. Of course, these effects occurred against a backdrop of rising retail employment, and only imply lower retail employment growth than would have occurred absent the effects of Wal-Mart."
If anything, that's evidence to counter your assertion that WalMart raises prices after eliminating its competition - retail in the counties is more efficient, and people are spending less money.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/walmart_n_4466850.h....
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-low-wage-employers-cost-taxp....
"Wage fraud" isn't what you asserted before, but even that isn't supported by these links. These links talk about the fact that WalMart employees low-income workers.
In France and many European countries to open a supermarket you need approval from a local and national administration. They check if your supermarket will endanger local commerce or existing big box retailers.
This is one of the reasons why Costco has delayed it's opening in Paris suburbs. All major european retailers fought (openly or covertly) against the permit and won several times.
Fear of the "big American Wolf" aside, it is a well known fact that letting a big box store or a retail park open near a busy city center will cause damages to the city center: some mom and pop shops will move onto the retail park, national clothing chains will do the same. Once almost everything a consumer needs has left for a nearby retail park, the city center economy collapses. Once the city center starts to collapse, it drives even more consumers to the retail park in a cascading effect.
I'm on mobile atm so I can only offer anecdotal evidence but I know several economic studies have been made on that subject.
A side effect of this regulated model is the prevalence of drive through supermarkets in France. All chains have opened an enormous amount of these. The reason is quite simple: the regulation is enforced for surfaces larger than 400 square metres. Drives have at most 10 square metres open to the public so were free to set shop anywhere. It took a few years to close that loophole...and the meantime carrefour, auchan, le clerc, casino, cora all opened dozens to hundreds of locations.
Where I was seeking evidence was for the claim that WalMart (1) lowers prices below their cost for the specific purpose of eliminating competition and that they (2) raise prices in compensation after those competitors fold.
First, you kill competition, second you jack up the prices once you have established a defacto monopoly (or oligopoly)? See Uber lowering prices last year and "suddenly" rising them this month, now that they are the defacto standard in many cities?
Whethever or not laws & regulations should be in place to protect the consumer against that kind of behaviour is another debate :-)
Some variation of the prisoner dilemma could be raised as a counter argument to my comment, though...
You know the King in the Little Price? He ruled over the whole universe - provided he just made reasonable demands, like ordering the sun to rise at dawn.
Likewise, some monopolies are only kept as long as the monopolist doesn't actually abuse it, because as soon as they do, it starts to make sense for competitors to open up.
Then the question becomes: if Walmart raised its prices so much, why didn't one of the other large chains move in to the same area?
Personally, I started asking anonbanker about it because I find most claims of long-term abuse of monopolies won without State help (Standard Oil being the typical example) to be flimsy at best, so I'm interested in finding good cases. Usually either the monopoly doesn't last very long or it's actually not being abused.