Comment on It’s Surprisingly Easy to Live Without an Amazon Prime Subscription
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 9 months agoIn summary, I think the statement is untestable because it’s so poorly confined. Basically it’s something that grumpy local business owners with poor value-propositions tend to say. One of those things that sounds like it ought to be true but doesn’t stand analysis.
For example, there might be a “local” store which doesn’t need many employees but sells products manufatured elsewhere. It’s a local store but most of your money is going elsewhere.
OTOH there might be a chain store that employs 100s of local people, and buys fresh produce from local farms. Not a local business owner but most of the money is benefiting your local community.
Additionally, local people own just as many shares in large chains as anyone else.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
What an excellent point.
Have to get to know the business owners in your own community and figure it out yourself perhaps!
I suppose a study could figure out average impacts though, via random sampling? Not sure how my source had calculated it.
You mean our neighbors own stock of Wal-Mart so shopping there is beneficial that way?
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 9 months ago
Yeah, I think that saying shopping at Wal-Mart is “beneficial” might be a bit of a stretch, I just mean to say that when someone says “shop at a locally owned store so your money stays local” they’re really saying “shop in my store so I get your money”. What most people don’t realise is that their pension plan (called super in Australia, 401k or something in US?) probably owns a bunch of shares in Wal-Mart, so you may as well shop there if you’re a part owner.