When I lived in Vermont in th emid-90's, all the granolaheads were having a collective heart attack at the idea that Wal-Mart would finally "conquer" (open stores in) Vermont. They claimed that Wal-Mart would kill all the mom and pop businesses, and that said mom and pops were better, but didn't realy give a good indication of why.
2006-07-19 09:28:22 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Corporations
Chain stores buy in bulk and carry a lot of inventory. As a result, they are able to offer wider choice at lower prices. Also, they don't have rules like "you break it, you buy it", "payments by credit and debit cards will require a $0.45 surcharge", or "all sales are final". Mom and pop stores usually cannot compete with that.
2006-07-19 09:35:56 · answer #1 · answered by NC 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They would be "better" because all of the excess profits they make stay in the community. Wal-mart's margins are much lower so this would drive the small guy out as well as all of the excess economic bennefit. This would be replaced with lower paying jobs and the excess capital being invested all over the world in the forms of new wal-marts.
2006-07-19 16:59:08 · answer #2 · answered by hollerbmw 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mom and Pop stores are what the country was founded on. Granolaheads and other types of people do not like big business - they think corporations are evil.
They see it as the "big" guy bullying the little "guy". Mom and pops cannot compete with larger stores - prices and volume of merchandise. If they do successfully compete, they have a difficult time.
Reminds me of the movie - You've Got Mail
2006-07-19 20:20:15 · answer #3 · answered by Sirena 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think they are both good, it's hard to to not like one or the other
2006-07-19 16:53:43 · answer #4 · answered by quikboy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋