August 10, 2005 @ 9:32 am
I could use a good business historian, if one should drop by. I’d be very interested to know what effect the arrival of a Sears Roebuck retail store had on local businesses in small town America. Did they thrive side by side, or did the Sears advantage of volume buying and lower prices drive out the "mom and pops?"
I’m prompted to ask, of course, because of the never-ending debate about Wal-Mart.
I call it a debate although characteristically it is pretty one sided. "Debate" would seem to presuppose a "pro" side as well as a "con." Wal-Mart has few defenders. Its attackers are concerned with labor equity issues, the effect on local retailers and national manufacturers, the destructive effect on traditional small two main streets, and so on.
The people who would normally come to Wal-Mart’s defense are the poor. Wal-Mart may be the first full sized department store in their community. It offers the two great advantages of price and choice.
I suspect the Wal-Mart customers have no time to consider the "big issues." School is starting and they have to buy clothes for the kids. The "big issues" are the ones that those of us who shop at Bloomies, or Dillards, or Marshall Fields have the luxury of considering.
So I leave you with this question: If not Wal-Mart, what? Wal-Mart’s success must initially have been customer driven. They "gave the lady what she wants" as Marshall Field once advised. They still want it. Is it arrogant of us to deny it?
