Danimal174 wrote: 

almost everywhere old downtown retailers/grocers have gone the way of the dodo

the advent of the shopping mall didn't help them either

if it wasn't walmart it would have been the next guy (maybe target or kmart back in the day)

they've been replaced by restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc.

people just chose to shop where they get better price/selection

because of great technology i get do business with a lot of small shops and i'm totally happy

regards

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Reason #1 of 456,319 that I have not set foot in a Valdamart in almost eight years.

 islander wrote: 

here's a take on min wage/price fixing that may help to understand the unintended consequences

The Economics of Price Fixing

Almost every piece of price-fix­ing legislation produces results opposite to those intended. Wheth­er one examines the outcome of interest rate regulation or mini­mum wage legislation, the lesson repeats itself; interferences with the price system lead to unin­tended and unexpected conse­quences. And more, the conse­quences aggravate the original situation the legislation had meant to ameliorate. Finally, the aggra­vation caused by the initial legis­lation generates further clamor for bigger governmental programs and stiffer Federal controls.

At this point even the most in­formed citizen loses the ability to differentiate sense from nonsense. Thoroughly confused, he resigns himself to the fact that free en­terprise has obviously failed, and that like it or not, it’s time that the government "did" something. He is usually completely unaware that it is the government inter­vention which has failed, and not the free market. The following analysis will attempt to highlight the evidence for this contention...

 Danimal174 wrote: 
That's the real wake of destruction any Walmart leaves behind.

After having to deal with Walmart in the past with two companies who were suppliers for them, as well as knowing some people who worked there, I cannot find any sympathy for this company. The only ones I feel sorry for concerning the store closures they've announced are the workers who will lose their jobs, along with the mom-and-pop stores in the area that were initially driven out of business when Walmart first came to town. 

 black321 wrote: 
================================

yes and she got the store numbers reversed, and walmart does have sales problem

a couple of analysts over at the street say that a large part of it is image:

"Walmart has a people problem," says Paula Rosenblum, an analyst with Retail Systems Research. "Until now, there is no evidence that technology can help solve that problem."

 By "people problem," Rosenblum is referring to issues around perceptions of Walmart as an exploitative employer, with demotivated employees and an uninspired product mix.

"Changing consumer perceptions is very difficult to do for a firm like Walmart, especially given how fast information flows with social media," says Kenneth Perkins, an analyst with Morningstar, a Chicago-based research consultancy.

 

here's an article that goes through the approximate numbers for the store(s) in question about minimum wage

Yes, I’m fully aware that they announced a series of store closures. They’re shutting down an entire line of stores, Walmart Express EXPR +2.51%, as the entire idea just doesn’t seem to work for them. There are closures overseas, although most are in the US, and obviously overseas closures have nothing at all to do with US wages. There are closures in red and blue states too. It’s still an interesting idea to run through what numbers we’ve got an examine the impact of that higher minimum wage on this specific decision in Oakland. For, of course, there’s no reason at all why all store closures should be for the same reason. That Walmart Express decision for example looks like being simply because the format doesn’t work.

However, over in Washington DC we’ve definitely got someone supposedly well informed stating that it was the higher minimum wage in that city which led to the decision not to open stores which had been promised:

Evans said that, behind closed doors, Walmart officials were more frank about the reasons the company was downsizing. He said the company cited the District’s rising minimum wage, now at $11.50 an hour and possibly going to $15 an hour if a proposed ballot measure is successful in November. He also said a proposal for legislation requiring D.C. employers to pay into a fund for family and medical leave for employees, and another effort to require a minimum amount of hours for hourly workers were compounding costs and concerns for the retailer.

“They were saying, ‘How are we going to run the three stores we have, let alone build two more?’ ” Evans said.

and links to another local article that states:

In Oakland, employees and city officials expressed shock, and some speculated that the city’s minimum-wage law played a part in the decision to shutter the store there. The Walmart in San Jose, which also boosted the minimum wage, will shut as well. The two stores in San Leandro, which has no minimum-wage law that supersedes the state’s, will remain open.

“I think it really is a little discouraging,” said Oakland Councilman Larry Reid, who learned of the closure in an early-morning phone call. “The minimum wage in the city of Oakland played a factor, was one of the factors, they considered in closing the stores.”

 

 black321 wrote: 
The math and critical thinking in that article is atrocious (this is why we need free college!). But when those stores close, this is the mantra that will be picked up.

Side note:  I still support the general premise that a fairly high mandated minimum wage won't be great for the bottom wage earners. But Walmart is a lousy example for most things business. 

 miamizsun wrote: 
It's actually 154 stores in the US...and the closures have nothing to do with the minimum wage.  Of the 154, 102 are of the "express" format they were testing and previously announced they would fold.  Walmart doesnt have an expense/labor cost problem, but a top-line sales problem. 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Throw in the TPP and you have a recipe for more heartache.

Guest commentary: Walmart stores to close—blame the minimum wage

 miamizsun wrote: 

 Coaxial wrote: 
these days it is a fine line....

 Coaxial wrote: 
Yeah; still fun, tho.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
You know this is a satire site, right?

Homeless Couple Found Living In Walmart Attic With Hot Plate, Meth Lab, And 42″ LED TV

In Ambitious Bid, Walmart Seeks Foothold in Primary Care Services

Welcome to Walmart. The nurse will be right with you.

Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, has spent years trying to turn some of its millions of customers into patients, offering a simple menu of medical services that consumers can buy along with everything from a bag of chips to a lawn mower. Now, the store is making an aggressive push to become a one-stop shopping destination for medical care.

The company has opened five primary care locations in South Carolina and Texas, and plans to open a sixth clinic in Palestine, Tex., on Friday and another six by the end of the year. The clinics, it says, can offer a broader range of services, like chronic disease management, than the 100 or so acute care clinics leased by hospital operators at Walmarts across the country. Unlike CVS or Walgreens, which also offer some similar services, or Costco, which offers eye care, Walmart is marketing itself as a primary medical provider.

Like its competitors, Walmart is looking to grab a bigger share of the billions of health care dollars being spent in the United States and benefit from the changes that have resulted from the Affordable Care Act.

The clinics charge patients $40 a visit. If the primary care clinics succeed, Walmart said, it is prepared to open even more.

With its vast rural footprint, Walmart is positioning its primary care clinics in areas where doctors are scarce, and where medical care, with or without insurance, can be prohibitively expensive. If they succeed, the company said, it is prepared to open even more.

“If they’re rolling it out across the rural stores primarily, they’re actually filling an important gap in the health care ecosystem,” said Skip Snow, a health care analyst at Forrester Research.

Trying to alleviate this thread of an auto-play feed somewhere.  Welcome to W.T. Grant's.

 RichardPrins wrote: 

Well at least they do not get my retail revenue, I have not set foot in a Vladmart in almost 3 years as part of an effort to support small, local businesses.

United States Taxpayers Are Subsidizing Walmart

Let's face it, people: Walmart is kicking our collective butts; to the tune of more than $7 billion in taxpayer subsidies. A new report by Americans for Tax Fairness points out that the American taxpayer - read that, you, me and probably everyone you know - "is providing enormous tax breaks and tax subsidies to Walmart and the Walton family, further boosting corporate profits and the family's already massive wealth."

In addition to accruing tax breaks from the rest of us, the report points out that "the Walton family is avoiding an estimated $3 billion in taxes by using specialized trusts to dodge estate taxes – and this number could increase by tens of billions of dollars."

And, the family "also benefits significantly from taxpayer-funded public assistance programs that pump up the retailer's sales. For example, Walmart had an estimated $13.5 billion in food stamp sales last year."

Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States, with 1.4 million employees. The company, which is number one on the Fortune 500 in 2013 and number two on the Global 500, had $16 billion in profits last year on revenues of $473 billion. (...)

---

Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, I'm a Whistleblower: Want Fries with That? | TomDispatch

 Prodigal_SOB wrote: