🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10csnisingsj40d@corp.supernews.com>, Kenneth Crudup
<kenny@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <10chjdtt9hspb7@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Sam D." <blueewater@greenham.org> says:
> 
> >I think OTOH that it would be pretty stupid for the families of existing
> >local
> >merchants and their employees to want their tax dollars used to subsidize a
> >new Walmart store in their community.
> 
> Er, the many of the merchants in Inglewood *don't* live in Inglewood, nor
> represent the majority of Inglewood residents.

Indeed. And even if they _did_ live in Inglewood, most of the "money
spent" in a large supermarket or department store goes out in labor
costs and in the purchase of the stuff they sell: profit margins are
slim, often only a few percent, and this is the only money that can be
said to "leave the area" (not counting the stuff bought).

Inglewood would have been better off having a store than NOT having a
store and having residents drive to neighboring communities to shop at
the store of their choice.

East Palo Alto, in northern California of course, faced a similar issue
when deciding "whether to allow" a Home Depot, Ikea, etc. They
ultimately allowed it, and now shoppers from many miles around visit
that shopping center. A lot of local EPA residents work at those
stores, giving them health benefits, insurance, and a decent salary.

Would it have been "better" for them if the liberal pukes had "won" and
kept Ikea and Home Depot out of their community?

--Tim May