Jason80

January 27th, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^

In urban or suburban areas Walmart pays the market rate for wages--if they don't employees leave for other jobs. Easy entry/easy exit jobs afterall. Look the market mechanism I'm action. In rural areas Walmart pays what they pay, if an employee leaves there may not be other year round permanent jobs available, bit there likely are prospective employees willing to accept those wages.

Joined: 10/05/2014

MGoPoints: 4099

MgoKY

January 27th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^

doesn't have the impact one would believe on other entrepreneurs in competing coffee shops. Conducted a research paper on the impact of their stores on smaller coffee shops a few years ago. Starbucks, many believed, would cause independent shops to close. It actually spurred immense growth and popularity in other coffee shops. Smaller shop owners benefited greatly, but one may think the opposite if comparing to how Wal-Mart impacted stores in their sector.

Joined: 12/23/2017

MGoPoints: 363

Arb lover

January 27th, 2018 at 7:46 PM ^

You can't simply take over a market and raise prices, when the startup cost for an indy coffee joint is so low, and a large percentage of people will always pay more for that indy coffee (as long as it isn't Biggby* crap or something similar). The starbucks case study (go back to the harvard business review one) makes the pitch that its a great idea, yes, but really its the high increase in coffee consumption that is driving the increase in coffee revenue. It's like saying JPM has a great concept of offering investment services to retail investors in the 2014-present market of high increases in retail investors. Right place at the right time. 

*Lansing born chain featuring box mixes with HF corn syrup, etc for specialty coffee, high prices, and no soul.

Joined: 11/26/2017

MGoPoints: 6915

GRBluefan

January 27th, 2018 at 9:07 AM ^

Why so many seem to get joy out of the failure of this business. Real people are losing their jobs. Sure, DB was a lousy AD, but I hope he succeeds in turning toys r us around. I can’t stand the Amazon-ification of the economy

Joined: 02/13/2009

MGoPoints: 18211

Cosmic Blue

January 27th, 2018 at 9:19 AM ^

whats wrong with the "amazonification" of the economy?

it may be sad for the individual people who lost their jobs at brick and morter stores, but online retail is simply more efficient. I feel it is akin to lamenting the job loss of people who shoed horses or tended stables as the automobile made those jobs obsolete. 

those people will unfortunately go through a tough transition, but that is a necessary evil in an evolving world

Joined: 10/13/2008

MGoPoints: 1500

Clarence Beeks

January 27th, 2018 at 9:35 AM ^

Exactly. And it’s not like it’s a definitive net loss of jobs, either, but rather it results in different jobs. We live in an area with a major Amazon distribution center so get same day delivery and some here can get one hour delivery. That has resulted in a massive new addition of courier jobs and businesses that didn’t exist before (for those not familiar, same day and one hour delivery doesn’t go through USPS, FedEx, or UPS).

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22733

bluebyyou

January 27th, 2018 at 11:07 AM ^

Really?  Ever see how Amazon runs their warehouses with lots of people being replaced by robots?  There is a net loss of jobs and it is only going to get worse.  Large, well run companies have learned to become efficient and a good chunk of efficiency is from AI/robotics.  Fine for corporate bottom lines but not so good for the job market.

As for Walmart, Walmart has figured out how to use the Amazon model and is going whole hog with internet sales.  Might as well cover both bases.

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18547

bluebyyou

January 27th, 2018 at 11:57 AM ^

I don't think we do yet, but if my vision of where the world is heading comes true, which includes the development of artificial super-intelligence, i.e., machine learning will exceed human learning and with it exponential technological growth, there will be very few of us with jobs. Machines will, however, provide us with almost unlimited resources.  So yes, we will need to be supported at some point in the future but not now.  Obviously, our economic system will change.

The website Wait But Why did a couple of fascinating pieces on this topic a few years ago. 

Great read: 

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html

And if you want to read something from Bill Joy, a Michigan alum who did well, try this piece from 2000 that kept me up most of the night when I read it:

https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/

Joined: 09/07/2009

MGoPoints: 18547

Arb lover

January 27th, 2018 at 7:56 PM ^

This idea comes with its own detriments and may actually contribute to a reduction in labor productivity.

However at a point in time in which many traditional jobs are more economically done by automation/non-human work, something like this may be necessary. Not sure if that will destroy us or bring about a new golden age.

Joined: 11/26/2017

MGoPoints: 6915

Clarence Beeks

January 27th, 2018 at 5:02 PM ^

You are talking about fulfillment center jobs only (which is not what I said). That said, your point may be the case other places, but not where they put the fulfillment center in our area. Those jobs were a Godsend for the people in that area. The claims being made here by most everyone who responded to what I wrote smack of the luxury of being able to say what they said from a position of privilege. I personally know people who work there and they are damn glad to be there.

Joined: 09/06/2008

MGoPoints: 22733

Cosmic Blue

February 6th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^

People complaining of losing their jobs to robots can (or be replaced by people who will): 1) learn to maintain, program, or build a robot; 2) work at a company that makes products that now can afford to sell to a wider market because of lower shipping costs; 3) earn less money (ie market wage) working at amazon picking things off shelves, .... 

the option of getting paid above market value to do some obsolete profession should not be on this list. if you want to do that, at least be something interesting like a blacksmith and work at renaissance fairs.

i dont want to live in a world where we take "From each according to ability; to each according to need."

 

Joined: 10/13/2008

MGoPoints: 1500

bacon

January 27th, 2018 at 9:47 AM ^

There’s less need for the retailers. They need to rethink their business model. Many other businesses have had to so this. Also, someone who sold you that charger is now making profit (presumably) off the sale, so we’re really just shifting business, not eliminating it altogether. Imagine we decided as a society we don’t want material goods. That would kill retail business.

Joined: 01/04/2009

MGoPoints: 18646

Steve in PA

January 27th, 2018 at 12:09 PM ^

It forces competitors to compete in something else other than price.  Customer service would be the most obvious one.  I will pay a bit mroe locally to get the same product I can get from amazon.  But only if I can get it today, it's the correct item, and the staff at the store aren't assholes.

A few years ago our washer broke.  A quick peek and youtube told me what the broken part was.  I went to the only remaining store that repairs appliances and carries parts.  He wanted $25 and it would take a week.  I had already priced it online and it was $8 in 2 days.  I told him as much.

He got ignorant with me, so I asked calmly why I would pay him $17 to order the same part I could order and it would take longer to get.

That business is now closed.

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 6327

treetown

January 27th, 2018 at 9:10 AM ^

Behind the many obvious causes: heavy competition from the Internet, is a more important factor - the leveraged buyout that allowed the group fronted by Dave Brandon to buy the company. This saddled Toys R Us with a huge debt load - and they were actually meeting it for a while. See this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JYUo9WKkao

It starts a bit slow covering the history of Toys R Us, at the 4 minute mark it starts getting into the details.

Joined: 11/10/2010

MGoPoints: 6325

Lampuki22

January 27th, 2018 at 9:20 AM ^

If TRU had a successful business model they wouldn’t have had to hire Dave Brandon. Retail is shrinking at an unprecedented pace.

‘Twas Amazon killed them, not The Beast.

Joined: 09/16/2009

MGoPoints: 7298

Robbie Moore

January 27th, 2018 at 10:15 AM ^

Solution: Bring in financial vultures fronted by a greedy incompetent to get huge self dealing compensation packages and otherwise pillage the remaining assets. Then leave the employees and creditors with a smoldering pile of ruins.

That's the ticket. 

Joined: 12/01/2008

MGoPoints: 45905

Hail Harbo

January 27th, 2018 at 1:07 PM ^

DB was never hired by TRU to turn it around, to rebuild the brand to that of the 1980s, that was never going to happen.  Demographics, if nothing else, is the barrier that cannot be crossed.  Baine Capitol, the largest single buyer of the then bankrupt TRU, didn't acquire TRU to turn it around, they bought the company to dismantle it in the most economically efficient method possible. 

TRU, at one time having more than 50% of the toy hardware business had contracted to right at 10% ten years ago with no hope of ever increasing the market.  Why?  1.) Baby Boomers are done having children, population growth through newborns has slowed dramatically.  2.) Big box stores such as Walmart and Target made one stop shopping, to include toys, lucrative.  Why go to TRU when the same toys could be had at Walmart or Target? 3.) The increase of electronic software has put a huge crater in hardware toy sales.

TRU is a dead end and it doesn't matter if Jeff Bezos is at the helm or David Brandon.

Joined: 06/18/2015

MGoPoints: 13428