> Which has little or nothing to do with what I said. I'm of the
> "nothing's too good for the working class" school, and I think people
> deserve more aesthetically pleasing places to shop than gigantic bare
> boxes with goods hideously piled about. But leave that aside - my
> question was where are the productivity gains from Wal-Mart going? Not
> to the workers, for sure, even the managers. Sure, customers get good
> deals, but most Wal-Mart customers come from a class that's barely
> making ends meet. That leaves the shareholders, which don't have much to
> do with socialist dreaming.
Doug, are you sure about the class that shops at Wal-Mart? Are they all barely making ends meet?
I think you underestimate the ingrained mentalities of the American middle class. Most of them have been indoctrinated into thinking that low prices are the most important thing when it comes to spending your money, whether or not you have a lack of money in your wallet.
Also, have you ever been in one of these super-sized Wal-Marts? These thing are designed to cater to the "they have everything" line of thinking. There is one of these behemoths down the street from where I am currently typing this message. I discovered this weekend that they are building a super Target across the street from the Wal-Mart. These mega box stores are sucking the life out of the mid-sized chain grocery stores.
I don't think that people care about aesthetics, as long as something is new and shiny. The suburban mentality doesn't place a lot of value on aesthetics or good cultural experiences.
It's pretty funny, because when I whine about this stuff, my father just says that the market determines these things and I have no right to complain because the current state of capitalism is what people want. What's ironic is that he sits on the planning commission and does everything he can to sabotage the plans of these national chain stores. He's the reason why the McDonalds here has three windows in the drive thru lane.
Chuck0