
Discount chains are thriving, but what do they do to poor communities? - haltingproblem
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/07/06/the-true-cost-of-dollar-stores
======
jaspax
If you read the opening section of the article, the writer clearly exposits
that more traditional retail stores closed down as the cities were subject to
deindustrialization and suburban flight. The dollar stores are what's left.
And there we have our answer: what discount chains do to poor communities is
_act as the only provider of goods_.

But the headline and the general tone of the article is desperately trying to
make it seem as if the dollar store is somehow the _cause_ of urban decay
(especially the middle section of the article, which tries really hard to
blame the dollar store for the fact that it gets robbed). One of the clearer
examples of the headline and tone trying to sell the writer's preferred
narrative even when the actual facts presented undermine that narrative.

~~~
nrp
I started reading the article with the same viewpoint you have, but I found
the arguments reasonably persuasive. Dollar General and similar are willing to
sell goods (apparently profitably) to communities that would otherwise have
access to little to nothing locally. This is good. At the same time, they are
unwilling or unable to create an environment that is safe for the folks in the
communities working or shopping there.

The key question left unaddressed in the rather long article is whether it's
economically infeasible to make the stores safe, or whether it's callousness
and profit optimization on the parts of the companies. "Shrink" is of course
accounted for in the economics, but not worker and customer safety, which is
externalized as violence and loss in the communities.

~~~
core-questions
> At the same time, they are unwilling or unable to create an environment that
> is safe for the folks in the communities working or shopping there.

Have you seen some of the very glassed-in sorts of "safe" stores that exist in
high crime areas? Tons of bulletproof glass, nothing directly accessible
without asking the cashier. It doesn't scale to any kind of a store where
sales are made by people walking around and seeing items and being inspired to
buy them. It only works for gas stations and restaurants, for the most part,
and even then it's a hassle for the staff.

> whether it's economically infeasible to make the stores safe

Never mind economics, it might just be logistically impossible unless you
invest heavily in security personnel, who really won't do very much in the
event of any kind of more serious criminal action.

Food deserts, etc. form in high crime areas because the crime drives them
away. The current anti-police attitude is going to make this worse in the
short term; I would like to hear what people are actually suggesting as an
alternative to enable these stores to stay without continually suffering so
much shrink as to make it hard to make payroll.

> "Shrink" is of course accounted for in the economics, but not worker and
> customer safety, which is externalized as violence and loss in the
> communities.

What does that last bit actually mean? How do stolen items "externalize as
violence"? It sounds like GPT-3 regurgitated a sociology textbook.

~~~
nrp
I think you misread my last sentence. Stolen goods are internalized costs
since they register directly as a write down of value. An employee getting
murdered in the store does not seem to be appropriately internalized as a cost
though, since they aren’t appropriately funding store safety and security.
Instead, the communities are bearing those costs by losing their people and
living among higher violence. There is an assumption baked into this (noted in
the article) that robbery isn’t fungible. Instead, the suggestion is that
stores heavy in cash and low in security foster robbery, which sounds logical
to me.

~~~
hedora
The article touched on the discrepancy between internalized and externalized
costs: The stores invested in securing their buildings’ air conditioners, but
not in security systems that would improve the physical safety of their
customers or employees.

------
supernova87a
Certainly the safety and operating conditions for workers in these kinds of
stores needs to be enforced, and companies penalized when they violate
workplace rules or create an unsafe environment.

But the larger issue is that these kinds of stores are not "doing" something
to communities. They are the reflection of (and maybe focal point for) what
_has already been done_ \-- communities that are hollowed out of industries
that used to sustain people who now don't have a lot of opportunities and can
only afford such stores, or where it's too unprofitable or dangerous to
sustain a traditional full service store.

If you want a real assessment of this country's prosperity (or lack of it for
many people) -- or simply what happens when an economy is no longer in baby-
boomer growth mode -- look to places like this where people who have been left
behind in the "economic boom" have to shop because they have no other choices.
Look to where the poor have to work/shop/live for the indicators of lack of
leadership at a national/state level who don't understand that a single rising
GDP number (for corporations) doesn't mean that all is good.

And by the way, don't blame the companies fully for it either. They just fill
in the gaps where our ineffective governments have abdicated their
responsibilities / role to take care of citizens. And the problem with
companies filling in the gaps is that they have no real moral values or long-
term responsibilities -- that's not their nature. They blow with the wind, or
when enough public pressure causes them to have to do something -- until the
next quarter.

Don't take the easy route and blame Dollar General. We're the dealers, they're
just playing the cards.

~~~
99_00
Are the poor worse off now than they were during "baby-boomer growth mode"?
Also, what is "baby-boomer growth mode"?

~~~
supernova87a
Maybe in an absolute material sense they are not worse off now. But most
certainly the opportunity to advance and achieve relative changes in class and
wealth are not as positive as they once were in the US.

Baby boomer growth mode was when the needs and growth of post-war America
meant that many, many people could have well-paying middle class jobs that
were a source of great economic mobility and improvement across the USA. It
was also an era with far less income inequality than now. When your
grandparents talk about needing to show initiative and go out there and find
opportunity, remind them that they grew up in an era where pretty much anyone
with a heartbeat could earn enough at a medium skilled job to buy a home by
age 40.

Not so much now.

~~~
im3w1l
Building a primitive shelter doesn't take a lot of labor, can be done in weeks
to months of time. Given that, it's absurd how hard housing is to come by.

------
DavidPeiffer
Tangentially related, but if anyone is interested in some manufacturing
background on some products for dollar stores, check out Poorly Made in China.
[1] The author goes through the process of an American business owner
attempting to manufacture soap in China, for distribution in US general
stores.

The owner was trying to stay compliant with all the laws, and trying to
fulfill the contract, but faced immense challenges. Ingredient swaps without
notice, labeling issues, bottle consistency issues, etc.

It really opened my eyes to the quality side of some commodity-type products.
We, as a society, need to become more aware of the supply chain of products we
buy. When I mention Amazon comingles inventory, most people are shocked. They
think Amazon Prime means Amazon has oversight and a motivation to control the
supply chain from the manufacturer to the end user, which is simply not the
case.

It's certainly challenging to figure out where stuff comes from, and suppliers
are constantly changing, so you'll probably only be able to trace back 1 layer
of manufacturing. Doing so helps give confidence in what you're buying.

[1] [https://www.wiley.com/en-
us/Poorly+Made+in+China%3A+An+Insid...](https://www.wiley.com/en-
us/Poorly+Made+in+China%3A+An+Insider%27s+Account+of+the+China+Production+Game%2C+Revised+and+Updated+Edition-p-9780470928073)

------
knzhou
This article reminds me of the time the city of Philadelphia tried to ban
corner stores from installing bulletproof glass to protect themselves in
robberies. Or the numerous education reformers trying to ban remedial classes
by making all classes nominally "honors".

Bulletproof glass, remedial classes, and dollar stores reflect societal
problems, so outside observers, in their great wisdom and compassion, decide
they must be the _cause_ of the problems. They campaign to get rid of them,
completely oblivious to the fact that this would only hurt the people they
supposedly care about, while doing absolutely nothing to address the real
problems. Their injunctions are not even self-consistent: the dollar store is
bad for not having the resources to prevent theft, while the corner store is
bad for trying to.

~~~
tropdrop
This article is not talking about the woes of Ma and Pa shops trying to
install bullet proof glass. It's talking about exactly the opposite, with
mayors of cities like Dayton asking large corporations - Dollar General and
Family Dollar - to _please go ahead and install bullet proof glass_ so that
less employees and customers die on their premises (i.e. the call for more
Security Guards).

 _The chains’ executives are candid about what is driving their growth:
widening income inequality and the decline of many city neighborhoods and
entire swaths of the country. Todd Vasos, the C.E.O. of Dollar General, told
the Wall Street Journal in 2017, “The economy is continuing to create more of
our core customer.”_

The bottom line is Dollar General knows exactly what communities to target -
already ailing ones:

 _This correlation is not a coincidence, according to a 2018 research brief by
the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which advocates for small businesses.
The stores undercut traditional grocery stores by having few employees, often
only three per store, and paying them little. “While dollar stores sometimes
fill a need in cash-strapped communities, growing evidence suggests these
stores are not merely a byproduct of economic distress,” the brief reported.
“[Sometimes] they’re a cause of it. "_

But just because you didn't start the fire does not mean you have carte
blanche in adding gasoline to the flames.

~~~
chrisco255
Because they're one of the few businesses that have figured out how to make it
work there. Look, just because penguins thrive in the Antarctic does not mean
they are making it difficult for other species to live there. Sometimes an
environment is just harsh.

~~~
danaris
If their method of "making it work there" requires them to actively (if
subtly) make conditions worse for the people living there, is it worth it in
the long run?

------
legitster
>The chains’ executives are candid about what is driving their growth:
widening income inequality and the decline of many city neighborhoods and
entire swaths of the country. Todd Vasos, the C.E.O. of Dollar General, told
the Wall Street Journal in 2017, “The economy is continuing to create more of
our core customer.”

This is a terrific article, but I hate the framing that the stores are the
problem. They are clearly filling a vacuum left by cheap real estate and low
wages. There is some evidence that the stores help accelerate the decline -
but the exact same business model is present in a Daiso store without it
ravaging Japan.

In nice coastal cities, the obvious problem is lack of zoned housing. But it's
easy to overlook that for most of America, it's effectively over-zoned. We
have huge sprawling cities and towns that have been hollowed out by population
flight. In my parent's town, half of the buildings are derelict. Spreading
thin what would otherwise be a vibrant business district. The deed holders
have long since vanished without paying taxes.

~~~
bobthepanda
> We have huge sprawling cities and towns that have been hollowed out by
> population flight. In my parent's town, half of the buildings are derelict.
> Spreading thin what would otherwise be a vibrant business district.

This is mostly a policy failure due to the failures to create regional
government in most metro areas that is updated to match the actual metro area.
Instead, we now have individual municipalities and suburbs duking it out for
the same pie. Suburb A could afford to keep tax rates low because it had brand
new infrastructure that didn't need much maintenance compared to the city,
until it also needed to replace its infrastructure at the end of its
lifecycle, at which point Suburb B now has the spanking new infrastructure
with low maintenance costs and low tax rates, until it doesn't and Suburb C
does, rinse and repeat.

------
TheDong
I find it interesting to consider the different affordances of society that
have lead to dollar stores and convenience stores being a lower-class
destination in America, while convenience stores in Japan are frequented by
people from all social classes and seem to serve a real niche.

The main difference I can think of is how cars and public transit are viewed
and differ. In America, most people, excluding the poor and those in dense
cities, have cars. The middle and upper class have ended up in "suburbia" in
many parts of the country, where they've sprawled enough that any activity
mandates taking the car. Those in this class all have lawns, and thus houses
must spread enough that densely packed city blocks are really only for the
lower class.

This is in stark contrast to Japan. Trains are taken by people of all economic
class, and neighborhoods are generally a little more dense. Cars are not the
everyday staple of life.

I think that difference leads to the need for a nearby corner-store that
serves the small needs of life. The 6-pack of beer, the toothpaste and other
small toiletries, the bread for breakfast.

There's clearly this niche of more frequent smaller "neighborhood" stores in
Japan. Why does it end up translating so poorly here, even in larger cities
where we have public transit (though significantly worse) and we have
relatively high density, relatively walkable, cities?

~~~
tkgally
Long-term resident of Japan here. I agree with what you say about public
transportation. I'm always struck, when I return to the Los Angeles area on
visits and go around by city bus, how overwhelmingly working class the bus
ridership is. In Japan, especially in the urban areas, nearly everyone takes
buses and trains.

The Japanese parallel to the dollar stores described in the New Yorker article
is not convenience stores, which are as you state, but hundred-yen shops. They
tend to be in low-rent locations, they pay low salaries, and the clientele
tends toward the working-class side.

But the parallel doesn't go very far beyond that, as the problems of crime,
food deserts, neighborhood decay, etc. described in the article are much less
serious here (if they exist at all) than in the U.S.

~~~
wirthjason
The quality at Daiso and such is lightyears above dollar stores in the US.
It’s quite outstanding.

In the US often to make those products cheaper something is reduced, it could
be the the size for example. Aluminum foil might be $1 at Dollar General for
an 8ft roll and $3 at Target for a 30ft roll, so the Target one is generally
cheaper on a per unit basis. The $1 version has the lower nominal price and
illusion of being cheaper. These stores then are not as cheap as they may
seem.

Brushing broad strokes with a wide brush, I also find the overall attention to
detail and pride to be much better in Japan so the stores are cleaner, staff
friendlier, etc. While the US counterparts are dirty, unorganized etc. The
article makes it sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy. This reminds me of the
broken window effect (which intuitively makes sense but may not actually be
true).

~~~
musicale
> The quality at Daiso and such is lightyears above dollar stores in the US.
> It’s quite outstanding.

I like Daiso quite a bit, even if it's more like a $1.50 store.

I'd definitely trade a local Dollar Tree for a Daiso.

I also hope that 7-11 stores in the US become more like 7-11 stores in Japan.

------
chrisco255
I grew up in a rural community that was at one time nearly a 30-45 minute
drive from any major department store. Dollar General stores have filled in
the gap and people in my hometown genuinely enjoy shopping there. It's
convenient, it's close, it's got all the basics, it's cheap. It's easy. It
works quite well for these smaller communities that don't justify a Wal-Mart
or Target sized department store.

------
cheesecracker
"While dollar stores sometimes fill a need in cash-strapped communities,
growing evidence suggests these stores are not merely a byproduct of economic
distress,” the brief reported. “They’re a cause of it.”"

Then kindly provide some of that "growing evidence", rather than a bunch of
anecdotes.

------
lopmotr
It's hard to find the point of the argument other than "poor people shouldn't
be allowed to buy cheap stuff." These shops cause poverty by being cheaper
than traditional chain stores and attracting robbers who kill staff?

I think people who have their life in order are often materialistic and value
long-lived possessions. They see buying this "cheap Chinese crap destined for
the landfill" as a sign of failure at life on the part of the buyers. But it's
hard to blame poor people for behaving like poor people so somehow this
article blames the shop.

~~~
fzeroracer
To sum up the article:

1\. Discount chains come in, proceed to wipe out all other local stores
through economy of scale.

2\. Discount chains become the only option for people to buy food or general
necessities. Said food is often low quality and unhealthy.

3\. Said chains also invest little in security, pay little and return little
to the local community.

Isn't it a failure of capitalism when there's only one store providing
everything you need and results in a net negative to the community over a long
period of time? It creates a defacto local monopoly. And when that discount
chain becomes unprofitable or leaves, what do you think will happen?

~~~
lopmotr
2\. is just people exercising their freedom. Unless you want to disallow poor
people access to products that rich people can have, or make them pay more!

3\. Technically it may be true but it's obviously not an honest argument
because they wouldn't blame the victim for other crimes. If that argument were
valid, it'd also be the workers' fault for working in such a dangerous place
and allowing crime to be committed (against themselves). Why isn't their
criticism should be directed at the staff instead? The staff are just there to
make money, same as the business is. Both are attracting crime.

------
chrisco255
“The likelihood of a crime occurring depends on three elements: a motivated
offender, a vulnerable victim, and the absence of a capable guardian,”

Can someone please telegraph this quote to the Defund the Police movement?

------
TheMagicHorsey
This is a bullshit article, not backed by data, but backed by the agenda of
the journalist.

When there is no Dollar General, the situation for poor residents is not
better. It's worse. The cheap prices seem like they don't mean much to this
yuppie moron journalist, but they are critical for families that live paycheck
to paycheck.

This idiot thinks urban economics are driven from the retail sector ... he
basically thinks the horse nourishes itself from its asshole. In truth, there
has to be some economic activity in the city to drive the consumer spending
which in turn drives retail. Dollar General and its ilk cannot simply create a
healthy city by paying its workers more, even though this dumbshit journalist
thinks so. Does that idiot theory even pass the most basic smell test.

I'm so sick of this anti-market rhetoric in America. Every ill in society is
in some roundabout way placed at the feet of the market and companies.

If companies are so bad, we'd expect to see great happiness in places that
have no corporations. In fact, its the f'in opposite. I actually do work in
rural India. When its just "mom and pop" stores in a village the people are
pretty much destitute. When corporations are present, incomes go up, goods and
services improve ... its just common sense.

This idea that urban retailers somehow create urban decay is like a freshman
Marxist take. How does this garbage get printed in newspapers in America?

And BTW, there are many security measures that stores can take to protect
their employees and merchandise, but I can guarantee you this idiot journalist
won't like them. They aren't pretty. Armed guards in stores and bullet proof
glass, and merchandise under lock and key is not what consumers want.

~~~
zozbot234
> If companies are so bad, we'd expect to see great happiness in places that
> have no corporations. In fact, its [the] opposite. I actually do work in
> rural India. When its just "mom and pop" stores in a village the people are
> pretty much destitute. When corporations are present, incomes go up, goods
> and services improve

This is actually a very nice point, thanks for mentioning it!

------
firloop
Off-topic but I went to share the URL to this article in iOS Safari, and was
surprised that the URL I shared was on a completely different origin
(propublica.org). Now, that link appears to be the same story on ProPublica’s
site, but that was pretty jarring; had no idea that browsers respect changing
share links to entirely different domains.

------
aliante
Dollar Stores exemplify the extreme mediocrity of retail in America. So many
products are more expensive at the grocery stores compared to dollar stores.

I'm upper middle class and I shop at dollar stores because everything from
envelopes to pens to bags of chips is cheaper at them.

------
wiseleo
I am confused... Dollar General and Family Dollar are not really dollar
stores. They have "dollar" in their name, but the prices are comparable to
other supermarkets. I just looked at their weekly ads and it could have been
any other mainstream supermarket with similar pricing. Yet the article only
mentions Dollar Tree in tangential context by saying they locate predominantly
in suburban areas, which implies lower crime.

While Family Dollar is technically owned by Dollar Tree, it is not integrated
and functionally a failed acquisition. Dollar General is not affiliated
although Family Dollar attempted to acquire it.

DollarTree, on the other hand, is a true dollar store. I shop there often and
it's my preferred choice.

In terms of clientele...

Whole Foods (Amazon)/Sprouts/Nob Hill (Raley's)/Trader Joe's/Harris Teeter/
Boutiques - elite Safeway (Albertsons)/Lucky
(Savemart)/Publix/Kroger/Raley's/Walmart - mainstream Dollar General/Family
Dollar - confused "dollar" stores that are not dollar stores Food Maxx
(Savemart)/Foods Co (Kroger)/Winco/Grocery Outlet - bulk shopping outside
Costco DollarTree/99 Cents Only etc. - true dollar stores for shopping while
broke or not considering status Convenience stores/Corner stores - terrible
places to shop.

Given choice, Dollar Tree always beats Dollar General and corner stores for
availability of healthier foods at a lower price except produce.

Fun observation: Kroger's Foods Co San Francisco store is probably the city's
largest liquor store. It has armed security guards. All liquor is at front of
store.

Source: I maintain POS equipment for all major grocery chains. Dollar Tree is
not one of them, I just shop there.

~~~
orhmeh09
Where are these Trader Joe’s stores? In Washington it seems more affordable
than Safeway and its customers not remarkably “elite.”

~~~
wiseleo
TJ's packaging tends to be smaller for produce. I wouldn't want to shop there.
Price per ounce is significantly higher.

------
ReptileMan
TLDR: Dollar stores are the only targets, they are also deliberately kept soft
targets by management, corporate management don't want to pay for security.

The article somehow absolves (as in doesn't mention) local municipal
government of having somehow influence over the crime and security of an area.
Just having poverty doesn't mean that a neighborhood should be dangerous and
crime ridden.

------
baggy_trough
They help them when few others will.

------
mudlus
The problem is disparity, a symptom is dollar stores, the cause is greed,
classism, and racism. The cure? Democratic socialism and separating money and
state.

------
ggm
If dollar stores do anything, they re-inforce the poverty trap they exemplify:
Once your community is serviced by dollar stores, it is hard to persuade
capital investment for different types of stores, because they want to avoid
the association.

Dollar stores don't cause poverty but they make it harder to move on from.

I live in a former working-class low-rent suburb, and the displacement of
dollar stores with real stores followed on from gentrification: it did not
lead. The dollar stores that persist are in dark corners. (btw I am part of
the gentrification problem: re-capitalising the locality is displacing people
with less income)

Dollar store poverty trap includes being forced to re-purchase badly made
cheap things, and live with hacks and bugs, because you cannot afford the well
made rational alternative. The belief that all goods in a type are
substitutable is simply wrong. (probably a strawman) -good wine has qualities
beyond getting you drunk, cheap wine only meets the latter goal.

SONY is not COBY.

~~~
ReptileMan
You cannot have freedom of settlement, regulation of construction and poor
people not getting the short end of the stick.

Unfortunately the world is trying it's best to fit itself into as few
megapolicies as possible. With Bangkok converting Thailand to something
resembling a city state. And the insane productivity of cities means that this
is potential endgame for all countries.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> You cannot have freedom of settlement, regulation of construction and poor
> people not getting the short end of the stick.

Sure, but that's just an obvious corollary of the more fundamental observation
"you cannot have poor people not getting the short end of the stick". That's
what we mean when we call them "poor".

