Walmart: Good v. Bad, Small Town USA

I shop at Walmart and I have friends that hate my going there, the friends who see the southern retailer as a threat to Bi-Mart, and I shop at Bi-Mart as well. But Walmart is the new guy and Bi-Mart is an employee owned local company, and you know how that is going to play out.

Is Walmart a threat? Or is the company a community asset? And what does that mean for the consumer- me and you?

These are questions that I have been asked, and more importantly, they are questions that we all should seek out- whether there are defined answers or not. And whether or not we even get an accurate answer is not of great importance(it is). The idea is to seek out relevance and a real perspective.

Why are both retailers so tempting? To myself, the cost is a factor as is quality. Affordable goods like raingear, vacuums, and groceries all make both sellers an attractive destination for everyday shopping. The amount of choices in these goods is a positive for the buyer, as a comfort zone of price and quality is achieved. The fact that this can be accomplished with an incredible number of items in a "one-stop" shopping store is of course, the main attraction.

Walmart however, is a "super-center" specializing in stocking essentially everything a person needs in daily life. The selection is far more than Bi-Mart, or any other similar retailer here(such as Fred Meyer) in Oregon. And that fact has given rise to a theory of Walmart generally crushing small community businesses of many different varieties, due to factors like convenience and selection- and of course, prices.

Because of the attractive one-stop shopping offered at Walmart, it has to be assumed that numbers from an existing market will inevitably end up in Walmart's column of statistics. Economic theory dictates that unless there is population or wage growth in a market, the market then has a spending ceiling, meaning the market can only see a set amount of spending on goods. And if any retailer takes an amount of profit from the market, it disappears from whom? Of course some stores will be affected in a negative way by Walmart, that is just fact.

Walmart super-centers include grocery, and that is a huge chunk of the overall consumer market pie. As one can see, it is truly "one stop shopping", and the effects are felt by grocery stores and chains as well.

This only contributes to the suffocating of local business as Walmart has saturated some market areas.

Other factors influence this negative impact as well. Higher per item costs to the smaller retailer and less taxes to the corporate retailer are two obvious ones. Some less obvious may include lower per capita wages, infrastructure stress, and environmental irresponsibility.

The wage factor influences long-term savings and general health care, but possibly not any more than what previously existed. The stress on infrastructure can vary from place to place depending on municipal and state requirements. Generally speaking, a variety of areas influence infrastructure, but in this case the total cost is managable if good policy is in place. Good policy would be municipal upgrades, maintenance requirements(roads...), and employee health care, all in the face of  a new store. The environmental distress of a large retailer is avoidable if the retailer takes extra steps to ensure awareness and active participation. Recycling all that retail packaging, well known for waste, should be considered. The impact of shipping all those goods may not be critical, but it should be minimized. Here in Oregon I wonder about the environmental cost of Arkansas milk, and I believe a more localized grocery is beneficial to everyone involved.

The issue of taxes in this writing, is of interest. Taxes are a core part of supply side economics, being that business gets tax breaks in exchange for community benefit(trickle down...), but that theory is assuming the benefit without considering all the evidence. Often, the taxes that are deferred for the sake of business are detrimental to the local government. The impact of a new Walmart closes some businesses, and that is a loss in tax revenue. Meanwhile, the super-center gets a tax break. In contrast, if Walmart was in another town, like Lebanon OR ten miles from my town of Albany, revenue may be lost as well. The out of town shopping costs the government  in lost sales taxes, income taxes, and lost local property taxes(on assumed dead businesses)- neither a welcome proposition.

The facts are this, as I see it:
Walmart is not going away, nor is the idea of a super-center. The public likes the concept and will use the super-center. As long as everyone involved experiences Walmart responsibly, the idea is a good one for society.
The retailer should be on the cutting edge of recycling. An enormous amount of material in this equation...
Local government along with the public should seek a balance of taxes and spending associated with a new super-center. Proper infrastructure upgrades and maintenance should be discussed. As well as taxes and municipal revenue. And even philanthropy.

And in my opinion, the consumer can encourage these things as well;
A link to contact your Congressperson: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
A link to Walmart Corporate: http://corporate.walmart.com/

I like Walmart, and I approve of my hometown super-center. The municipal improvements, additional local economy, and budget conscious prices are worth it for me- although recycling would be awesome!